I think this is pretty clear-cut. The rule has a clear-cut meaning, and altering that requires amending it. Without Rule 110, this rule does nothing at all; it's purpose is to modify the function of Rule 110. Precedence makes this impossible.

In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.

Note the wording of Rule 111. By implication, transmutation would count as conflicting with a immutable rule if not specifically exempted. Potentially anything which alters the functioning of a rule conflicts with it. Redefining a rule's text alters the functioning more than a transmutation, so since there is no clear exception for it, it is prohibited.

Heading off possible arguments against the CFJ:

There is no precedent for actions like this; the only other term given definitions are terms which had an unclear definition beforehand. Where there is ambiguity, additional rules specifying a meaning don't conflicting with the higher-precedence rule.

If this rule is unclear and can be defined on those grounds, then the ruleset means nothing at all, because almost none of it has been defined. All actions taken have been potentially against the rules, because in any case it is possible that the game definition of "you must take the action" is actually "you must not take the action."