Fed Case Book contradiction?

[dash_riprock]

It all makes sense if: a) with respect to a dropped (moving) bat contacting the ball (2.5.1.E), the point of contact determines fair/foul status, and; b) with respect to the ball contacting a stationary bat, the point of contact is irrelevant - fair/foul is determined by other factors, i.e., the location of the ball when it comes to rest or is touched by a fielder.

The real daunting part is contained in 2.5.1.E: "The batter hits the ball, drops the bat and it unintentionally hits the ball a second time..."

Just how are we supposed to determine the intent of a bat?