The legality of the following program depends on whether the scope of the simple name D is (i) just the RecordBody of C, not the RecordHeader `(D x)`; or (ii) the RecordBody of C _and_ the RecordHeader.

record C(D x) {
    class D {}
}

If (i), then the record component `D x` is illegal (D not in scope).
If (ii), then the record component is legal.

The record component _should_ be legal because the program is specified by 8.10.3 to be equivalent to the following declaration of C, which is plainly legal:

class C {
    private final D x = ...;
    public D x() { ... }
    class D {}
}

It's unreasonable to ask people to sketch out the equivalent program in order to figure scope. 6.3 should clarify that "The scope of a declaration of a member m declared in or inherited by a class or interface C (§8.2, §9.2) is the entire body of C, including any nested class or interface declarations. ***If C is a record class, then the scope of m additionally includes the header of the record declaration of C.***"