Praudhamanorama p169

p169

On "na bahuvrīhau" (Pā. sū. 1.1.28): once the bahuvrīhi is formed, the prohibition is purposeless because it will be stated that "the words beginning with sarva, when subordinate, are not [pronominal]"; therefore he says: "when intended to be made." And [he says]: "even prior to the compound." On "prakriyā-": and it must not be said that prior [to the compound] the technical name will not take effect because its cause, namely non-subordination, is facing destruction; for the metarule regarding an unarranged intention (akṛtavyūhā) is not universally valid. And on that point, this very rule serves as the indicator.
On "atibhavakān": the idea is that this itself is the fruit of the indication. On "making it an acceptable consequence": the mention of [the augment] tuk in "cchvoḥ śūḍ" (Pā. sū. 6.4.19), or the statement on the assumption of base and affix, is the indicator for its non-universality; the idea is that the arrangement is determined in accordance with the target forms.
On "yathottaram": and thus, the idea is that at present the arrangement is established solely by the statement of the Bhāṣyakāra.
As for what an older grammarian said: "In a bahuvrīhi, sarva and so forth would not have pronominality: priyasarvāya. In the view of the Sūtrakāra, there is no pronominality in a bahuvrīhi; in the view of the Bhāṣyakāra, [it is denied] in mere secondary nature. In 'tvatkapitṛkaḥ' and 'matkapitṛkaḥ', because 'yuṣmad' and 'asmad', being parts of the compound, are pronominals, the affix akac would apply as an operation not conditioned by an aṅga; lest that occur, the affix ka alone should apply—for this purpose is this rule formulated: such is the view of the author of the Nyāsa."