In the recent decision in Bananas, the AB had this to say about "interpretations" under WTO Agreement Article IX:2:
383. Multilateral interpretations of provisions of WTO law are the next method identified above.
Article IX:2 of the WTO Agreement sets out specific requirements for decisions that may be taken by the Ministerial Conference or the General Council to adopt interpretations of provisions of the
Multilateral Trade Agreements. Such multilateral interpretations are meant to clarify the meaning of existing obligations, not to modify their content. (emphasis added)
Recall that, as I argued a little while ago, the AB's explanation of "clarify" under DSU Article 3.2 sounds a lot like "interpret":
On this point, take a look at this statement by the AB at para. 161 of U.S. - Stainless Steel (Mexico):
Clarification, as envisaged in Article 3.2 of the DSU, elucidates the scope and meaning of the provisions of the covered agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law.
That definition of "clarification" sounds a lot like the definition of "interpret." From the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "To explain the meaning of."
So "interpret" means "clarify," and "clarify" means "interpret"? Are they identical, with the only difference being that Members' interpretations under WTO IX:2 trump panel/AB clarifications under DSU 3.2?