diff --git a/xml/issue2991.xml b/xml/issue2991.xml
index 7c9c1dd912..28b2ca3bec 100644
--- a/xml/issue2991.xml
+++ b/xml/issue2991.xml
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
 <!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
 
-<issue num="2991" status="LEWG">
+<issue num="2991" status="Open">
 <title><tt>variant</tt> copy constructor missing <tt>noexcept(<i>see below</i>)</tt></title>
 <section><sref ref="[variant.ctor]"/></section>
 <submitter>Peter Dimov</submitter>
@@ -30,6 +30,14 @@ it's inconsistent for it to take a stance against it.
 
 <note>2017-07 Toronto Tuesday PM issue prioritization</note>
 <p>Status to LEWG</p>
+
+<note>Wrocław 2024-11-18; LEWG approves the direction</note>
+<p>
+In <paper num="P0088R1"/> the copy constructor was conditionally noexcept
+in the synopsis, but not the detailed description. This was pointed out
+during LWG review in Jacksonville.
+The approved paper, <paper num="P008R3"/>, doesn't have it in either place.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>
diff --git a/xml/issue3003.xml b/xml/issue3003.xml
index 8791fffeec..854627bd20 100644
--- a/xml/issue3003.xml
+++ b/xml/issue3003.xml
@@ -117,6 +117,8 @@ fix `reset()` as discussed in issue <iref ref="2245"/>.
 </ul>
 </p>
 
+<note>Wrocław 2024-11-18; LEWG would prefer a paper for this</note>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>
diff --git a/xml/issue3454.xml b/xml/issue3454.xml
index 0b8fbc8ee1..6ac8d6f070 100644
--- a/xml/issue3454.xml
+++ b/xml/issue3454.xml
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
 <!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
 
-<issue num="3454" status="LEWG">
+<issue num="3454" status="Open">
 <title><tt>pointer_traits::pointer_to</tt> should be <tt>constexpr</tt></title>
 <section><sref ref="[pointer.traits]"/></section>
 <submitter>Alisdair Meredith</submitter>
@@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ nodes, and stored as <tt>end</tt> sentinel directly in the <tt>list</tt> object)
  <tt>constexpr basic_string</tt> can support fancy pointers <em>or</em> SSO, 
  but not both.
 </p>
+<note>Wrocław 2024-11-18; LEWG approves the direction</note>
+<p>
+Should there be an Annex C entry noting that program-defined specializations
+need to add `constexpr` to be conforming?
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>