Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination?

[Sylvester]

The position goes back to your insistence that hetu does not equate with paccaya, ventilated at -

Examining Hetu and Paccaya in Relation to Paṭiccasamuppāda

How odd. MN 118 is not the only place in the Canon which dispenses with a fulsome “body of something” in favour of a shorter “body”. Take a look at SN 12.25 - Ignorance is comprised within these states. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance that body does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally; that speech does not exist conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise internally; that mind does not exist conditioned by which th…

I’m still waiting for a satisfactory explanation to the points I raise.