The ELM Suitability section says:

To determine suitability of ELM for use in a given environment, the following guidance SHOULD be followed

Conformance Requirement 2.23 (ELM Suitability):

1. If the library has function overloads (i.e. function definitions with the same name and different argument lists), the ELM SHALL have been translated with a SignatureLevel of Overloads or All

2. ...

If it only SHOULD be required, it is a BEST PRACTICE, not a REQUIREMENT. It's also confusing to have SHALL verbs inside a body that is overall considered SHOULD. (You should must do this?)

There are likely a few approaches to rectify this.

You could remove the overall SHALL (making it a true conformance requirement). In this case, you could leave the 6 points as is (making the overall requirement stronger), or you could weaken the SHALLs in points 1, 2, 3, and 5 by making them SHOULDs.

OR you could change it from "Conformance Requirement 2.23" to "Best Practice 2.23". In this case, the SHALLs are still somewhat confusing, but less so (in the context of a best practice) and do serve to indicate relative importance compared to the SHOULDs.

OR you could mark this NOT PERSUASIVE and say I'm being nit-picky.