This is from last week's China - TRQs panel report:
6.20. The United States requests that the reference to a "well-established principle in WTO case law" in paragraph 7.212 be deleted, since it could be "misunderstood as indicating that prior panel and appellate reports have precedential value" and since the DSU provides more direct support for the relevant finding.123 The United States suggests further modifications to paragraph 7.212 and footnote 404 thereto (footnote 364 of the Interim Report) to clarify that the finding is based on the provisions of the DSU. China has not commented on this request. While we have not found it necessary to introduce all of the United States' suggested modifications, we have deleted the reference to a "well-established principle in WTO case law" and have made certain other textual modifications to paragraph 7.212 and footnote 404 thereto in order to address the concern identified by the United States. Although not specifically requested by the United States, we have also made the same modifications in paragraph 7.238 and footnote 446 thereto (footnote 406 of the Interim Report) concerning the claim under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
Here is para. 7.212:
7.212. Finally, we recall that panels are not required to examine all legal claims made by the complaining party, and need only examine those claims that must be addressed to resolve the matter at issue in the dispute.404
----------------------------
404 Appellate Body Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, pp. 18-20, DSR 1997:I, p. 323, at pp. 339-341 (referring to Articles 3.2, 3.4, 3.7, 3.9, and 11 of the DSU).
I'm not sure how the result is any different after the panel's change in language. Is this mostly about tone, and different language in panel/AB reports regarding past cases would largely fix the issue of the role of precedent?