Original text:
5.2.3. <del> For embedding the Disclosures in the SD-JWT, the Disclosures are hashed using the hash algorithm specified in the </del>  claim described in hash_function_claim.  The resulting digest is then included in the SD-JWT payload instead of the original claim value, as described next. The digest MUST be taken over the US-ASCII bytes of the base64url- <del> encoded Disclosure.  This follows the convention in JWS RFC7515 and JWE RFC7516.  The bytes of the digest MUST then be base64url-encoded. </del>  It is important to note that:

Reviewer comments:
Editorial updates for more consistent treatment of a Disclosure vs the contents of a Disclosure (to Confusing terminology) Editor's draft PR preview: URL
Hi, Disclosure is used at least two ways in the document. to refer to the array containing the salt, (maybe name), and value. to refer to the base64url encoded string It's easy to understand how this could have happened, as both contain logically the same information. I propose explicitly calling these: disclosure array, and disclosure presentation I also propose calling the hash/digest of the disclosure the disclosure digest in full in every use. The only time we would use "disclosure" without one of these modifiers is talking about the process of disclosing in general. As for the plaintext of the claims that can be disclosed, I propose blinded claim. So the first paragraph of Section 4.1 would read: An SD-JWT consists of: a signed JSON document, a list of disclosure presentations (each of which reveals a blinded claim), and optionally an issuer key binding (discussed in Section 4.3). The signed JSON document (the JWT body) contains plaintext claims; and disclosure digests, each of which either refers to a specific blinded claim or is a decoy. The holder can include zero or more disclosure presentations without breaking the signature of the JWT body. The contents of the blinded claims cannot be modified, because the corresponding digest would no longer match any digest in the JWT body. Blinded claims can be individual object properties (key-value pairs) or array elements.
This is appreciated! I agree that we should be more consistent with our terms. I'm not sure about "disclosure presentation" as "presentation" suggests a specific meaning. Maybe just "disclosure" and "disclosure contents" is fine.
The current document attempts to mostly use "Disclosure" to mean the base64url encoded string. I think that works okay. Places where it's referring to the decoded JSON array should be fixed to be more clear. So I think I agree that "disclosure" and where needed "disclosure contents" would be good.
PR has editorial updates for more consistent treatment of a Disclosure vs the contents of a Disclosure
made one suggestion, but overall, looks good to me! thank you!

Revised text:
5.2.3.  <ins> For embedding references to the Disclosures in the SD-JWT, each Disclosure is hashed using the hash algorithm specified in the </ins> claim described in hash_function_claim.  The resulting digest is then included in the SD-JWT payload instead of the original claim value, as described next. The digest MUST be taken over the US-ASCII bytes of the base64url-  <ins> encoded value that is the Disclosure.  This follows the convention in JWS RFC7515 and JWE RFC7516.  The bytes of the digest MUST then be base64url-encoded. </ins> It is important to note that: