That is also true. But the Diagram has always used the convention that in combination with i, the n would create e.p. rights on the squares it can be blocked, to make it possible to describe a FIDE Pawn with an ifmnD component. And to make Metamachy Pawns possible, I later added the convention that nn had the same effect (i.e. not only make the move lame, but also rights-creating). So nnA would be a XQ elephant that can be e.p. captured (by fsmceW XQ Pawns...).
But the n had no meaning on the stepper atoms W and F, and their sliding multiples R and B. And the in and nn conventions are really unsatisfactory, because the n on which they are based is: they are ambiguous for oblique moves. XBetza solves the lameness problem by explicitly specifying the path through multiple W or F legs, with m-only capability on the intermediate squares where blocking can occur (and mp on squares that are jumped over). So it would be natural to also allow explicit specification of the squares where e.p. rights are created. And the n (which already had a similar meaning in the other contexts, albeit only after duplication) was available for overloading.
So nW now means creation of e.p. rights on the destination square of the W step (only meaningful on non-final legs, as otherwise the piece would remain there to be captured anyway), and nR or nW4 creation of rights on the destination of every W step that makes up the total R move. Together with the convention that c moves can always e.p.-capture royalty (and e is only needed to enable e.p. capture of non-royals that created rights), this makes it possible to use n for defining sliding royals that cannot move through check.
That is also true. But the Diagram has always used the convention that in combination with i, the n would create e.p. rights on the squares it can be blocked, to make it possible to describe a FIDE Pawn with an ifmnD component. And to make Metamachy Pawns possible, I later added the convention that nn had the same effect (i.e. not only make the move lame, but also rights-creating). So nnA would be a XQ elephant that can be e.p. captured (by fsmceW XQ Pawns...).
But the n had no meaning on the stepper atoms W and F, and their sliding multiples R and B. And the in and nn conventions are really unsatisfactory, because the n on which they are based is: they are ambiguous for oblique moves. XBetza solves the lameness problem by explicitly specifying the path through multiple W or F legs, with m-only capability on the intermediate squares where blocking can occur (and mp on squares that are jumped over). So it would be natural to also allow explicit specification of the squares where e.p. rights are created. And the n (which already had a similar meaning in the other contexts, albeit only after duplication) was available for overloading.
So nW now means creation of e.p. rights on the destination square of the W step (only meaningful on non-final legs, as otherwise the piece would remain there to be captured anyway), and nR or nW4 creation of rights on the destination of every W step that makes up the total R move. Together with the convention that c moves can always e.p.-capture royalty (and e is only needed to enable e.p. capture of non-royals that created rights), this makes it possible to use n for defining sliding royals that cannot move through check.