For the record, I must admit that even though I recently read this thread, including @samth's remarks, I still fell into the trap of thinking that a struct's name would be bound to its descriptor at phase 1 rather than being a transformer binding in this parallel thread:
"Obviously" a phase 1 binding wouldn't work since the name would not show up in the match form, etc. The worse part is that I was even using the correct language ("transformer binding") while making this mental mistake. My remarks don't even make sense because it wouldn't be possible to create both a phase 0 binding and a transformer binding for the same identifier. It is no wonder that @samth needed me to clarify.
In this example, the fact that the transformer binding's value acts as both a procedure and a structure may create a garden path to the notion that there must be two bindings, leading to the notion that they must be at different phase levels. Either that or I just need an object lesson every time I step back into the world of macro practice after an extended period of time.