The Dog that Didn't Bark in the US IP Claim Against China

One of the most significant complaints made by the US in its Section 301 investigation of China's IP practices is the claim that China conditions permission for foreign investment on transfer of technology.  However, in the US' recent WTO complaint against China's IP practices, the US does not bring a claim under Art. 7(3) of China's Protocol of Accession, which (as Julia Qin pointed out a while back) in relevant part reads as follows:

Without prejudice to the relevant provisions of this Protocol, China shall ensure that the distribution of import licences, quotas, tariff‑rate quotas, or any other means of approval for importation, the right of importation or investment by national and sub‑national authorities, is not conditioned on:  whether competing domestic suppliers of such products exist;  or performance requirements of any kind, such as local content, offsets, the transfer of technology, export performance or the conduct of research and development in China. 

This commitment is clearly mentioned in the US Section 301 Report into China's IP Practices, at page 19.  So why is it not in the WTO request for consultations?