If the top person is, in fact, inverted, then the person under her cannot be in a position to protect in order to be consistent with other rulings. If that base stood up, for example, and the top person was totally upside down on their backs, we’d clearly say they weren’t in a position to protect. Changing the degree of inversion shouldn’t change that call, as we’d really be into different interpretations at that point.
The key here is for the judge to determine if the top person is inverted. If the top person were to remain a not inverted then this could become legal.