I'm going to point something out. Reading this as having the "If you do" refer to everything after the may instead of referring to if you gain one strain might well be RAI.

...But...

If so it is kinda embarrassing how poorly structured it is.

Lets throw some plain English at you here to try and make it clear how bad it is.

"I may go to the garden today. If I do I will pick a flower."

Simple enough everyone knows what I mean. And let me also note basically this is a direct equivalent to the text of advanced sensors minus a paragraph break that is mostly there for efficient use of white space and breaking text up for readability. Meaning when things get more complex in the next examples... they do so in a way that advanced sensors is not in any way a clarifying example for.

"I may go to the garden today. Then if I see a duck I will feed it bread. If I do I will pick a flower."

Is utterly straight forward to. Any English speaker will see that structure and immediately and correctly assume that I will now only pick a flower IF I see and feed a duck. Because when you structure that sort of conditional statement in that way the natural and correct assumption is you are referring to the singular immediately proceeding condition only.

Let's try that with a paragraph break.

"I may go to the garden today. Then if I see a duck I will feed it bread.

If I do I will pick a flower."

Well now its just a little bit ambiguous. But... it would still be really weird to just assume anyone reading that would think your "if you do" wasn't referring to the immediately prior statement you made AND if you, kinda oddly, assume that the "if you do" somehow instead referred to the "may go to the garden" then you are claiming that the paragraph break means the next line is referring to the entire prior paragraph.

But that's problematic because the entire prior paragraph has an additional conditional statement. So you ask yourself the "If I do" and... answer "Yes, no wait, then No! Huh, whats Yes plus No... a maybe at best? Probably a no. Damnit."

And in the end I'm sorry. This is so badly worded the RAW is at the most generous interpretation unclear, and frankly in my interpretation directly in conflict with what I'd probably say I myself hope is RAI.

This is in need of official clarification, and ideally official correction. Also they need to do better on this sort of structure in future.

We cannot based on the information in this thread alone make any definitive statement about the RAI on this card other than what we would like it to be. We can definitely say the RAW is... problematic...