Prior to ss (viii) of S 4 of the Act doesn't refer to representations at all, their first and only mention is in ss(viii). Therefore, if interpreted too narrowly, the defence of conflation could not succeed because there's no requirement for the PCN to refer to representations at all because S4 doesn't. But it does succeed, and you've been successful with arguments based in this very point, therefore IMO it must follow that adjudicators regard para. 1 of Schedule 1 to be mandatory by virtue of ss(viii).
If we disagree, so be it, let's not distract the OP.
For me:
Where's the signage?
If the road marking, then the contravention is wrong;
Whose car?
Flawed wording of PCN