Is the C standard a formal document? I suggest that no, it is not. Of course, it's written in a formal register, and it certainly strives for precision, but at the end of the day it is prose and in some places ambiguous. That's not a dig, it's just an inherent limitations of using English to define a programming language.
I rather hope that doesn't happen to Rust. What I'd _much_ rather have happen there is to see the language precisely defined by an operational semantics, that is the source of truth. That could be paired with an explanatory reference document that describes those semantics in prose, as accurately as possible. But at least where ambiguity creeps in (as it surely will in prose) there's an accurate and rigorously defined source that one could consult to address those ambiguities precisely.