NEC ECC: Should a reference to compliance with CDM Regulations be inserted in the Scope, as a Z clause or both

In an NEC4 PSC there is confusion as to the best place to make reference to the CDM Regulations. Should this be inserted in the Scope as it effectively represents a constraint as to how the consultant works or should it be via a z clause. There is a concern that where it is worded in the Scope in a way which means they may or may not be the designer or principal designer and then this is changed post tender to clarify responsibilities then this would constitute a change to the Scope, subsequently invoking a compensation event. However, to insert this as a Z clause would avoid this?

Lawyers seem to prefer the option Z clauses, but they would wouldn’t they!

I see no reason why it can’t be in the Scope though and, if being the Principle Consultant is part of their professional services, then putting it in the Scope fits with the contractual definition of what the Scope is!

Further, if it needs modifying in some way, then it can be done by an instruction rather than a Supplementary Agreement if it is the option Z clauses.