A question of rulebook pedantry:
Effective July 2014, the FIDE has revised its Laws of Chess. As you know, the Laws have long allowed a player to claim a draw by repetition. The July 2014 Laws, sect. 9.2, however append this curious sentence:
When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.
Sect. 9.2 does not explicitly link this sentence to the draw by repetition. The sentence floats alone.
Because there seems to be no other reason for the sentence to be in sect. 9.2, one tends to read it to imply that, at game's start, four castling rights exist—White's kingside, White's queenside, Black's kingside and Black's queenside—and that these castling rights are as much features of the position as, say, a white pawn on b3 is a feature of the position. White's kingside castling right vanishes when Rh1 or Ke1 is first moved, or when Rh1 is captured (though, actually, sect. 9.2 does not mention the rook's capture), and cannot vanish at any other time or in any other way. Specifically, White's kingside castling right vanishes neither (a) when White is temporarily prevented from castling kingside nor (b) when no legal continuation exists in which White could castle kingside.
In other words, a castling right exists even if it can never be used; and this affects when a draw can be claimed.
Could one read sect. 9.2 in any other way?
For example, this (nonsensical but technically illustrative) game is not yet a draw:
[Title "White to open, illustrating sect. 9.2"] [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 b6 6. Bxa8 Bd7 7. Qh5 Qxh5 8. Rb1 Nc6 9. b3 e6 10. Na4 Bd6 11. c3 O-O 12. Nh3 Qe5+ 13. Kf1 Qf5 14. Ke1 Qe5+ 15. Kf1 Qf5 16. Ke1 Qe5+
After 12... Qe5+, three castling rights have already vanished, but White's kingside right remains, even though no continuation exists in which White might eventually castle. On the other hand, after 14... Qe5+ or 16... Qe5+, all four castling rights have vanished. Therefore, triple repetition has not yet occurred.
Is my understanding correct? Or is an alternate, reasonable interpretation possible?