Section 9 contains requirements (which appear to be normative) about how JSON texts should be interpreted. Yet Section 2 defines conformance purely in terms of whether a sequence of Unicode code points is a valid JSON text. This is broken because any failure to meet a normative requirement should constitute non-conformance.
Possible fixes are:
a) Make the prose in section 9 informative, or
b) Modify the definition of conformance to say, for example, that a conforming parser must treat equivalent JSON texts identically
I think (b) would be more useful.