It does, and you are correct about the time limits. Then again, at that point in time, it only applied to 10U & certain pool play. However, as money became the issue and a tournament would take as many teams as possible, the demand for fields and umpires increase while there were still so much time in a weekend. So, they obviously had to allot the time two teams could take.

I expect the clarification to be the easy way out and consider going to a TB as extra innings, but I contend that creates a possible advantage
to the team that uses or even misuses their conferences early by allowing one team up to 3 more conferences than the other. the 7 inning plus one per extra inning (not time) seems the only fair method, IMO.

One team can already get 3 more than the other, by using them in the first 7 innings and not having the other team use them. As long as they both play by the same rules I don't understand how it's an advantage.

Here in Chattanooga (ASA/USA 12A),the interp from Jimmy Derrick and Mike De Leo (co-UICs) is that when time limit expires before the 7th inning
A. Any unused DCs are gone
B. One DC will be allowed per inning.

That is true, but you still used the magic inning number and all are still available for 7 innings. If the time limit cuts the innings short, those unused are no longer available should that DC need them.

Understand, if the clarification and/or rule change indicates that playing past the time limit starts both teams from scratch at one per inning, I'm okay with that.

I'm just saying as the rules stand, and I am presenting a reason why they should remain that way, there is no allowance for that interpretation.

Our interp at the 10u/12uB Western National was the same.

There is nothing in the book or published elsewhere that says otherwise.