Are you thinking about something along the lines of:
A verbal statement in turn denotes your action, is binding, and takes precedence over any different physical action made after the verbal statement.
While the posters in the 2+2 thread debate AA, they don't know we've already hashed it over on this forum for years on end... Like it or not, the reality is that AA will apply now almost any time that the caller can be blamed for getting the count wrong -- whether or not he may have been misled by the player, or even the dealer.
Apparently, Rule 1 can still apply though. But I believe that TDs who are still learning the ropes will have difficulty determining when an exception should apply to allow the caller who was unaware of the count some relief.
I had mentioned my "deaf person" approach in previous threads: If I had my way re AA, I would really like to see in either the rules of at least the procedures a note that Rule 1 can certainly be applied to situations where there is a discrepancy between the chips put into the pot and the amount of any verbal declaration. Note this is different from situations in where big denomination chips are hidden within a stack clearly pushed forward, since the player can easily ask for a count or for the dealer to break down the stack, and so arguably he should bear any risks associated with not doing so. I am talking more about the situation where, say, a player throws in one or few chips but the bet is in fact a larger amount, and someone calls not knowing that the wager is much bigger, especially in an all-in situation where an all-in button is not used. If the visual clearly doesn't match the verbal, I think the bettor should bear some responsibility for not putting the correct amount of chips into the pot; some relief for the caller may be warranted.