Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4928.

[Drafting note: When assignment and swap need to backup the old value by move construction, the source should be considered cv-unqualified, as the backup mechanism is only used internally.]

1. Modify [expected.object.general] as indicated:

   […]
   bool has_val;      // exposition only
   union {
     remove_cv_t<T> val;       // exposition only
     E unex;          // exposition only
   };
   […]
   

2. Modify [expected.object.assign] as indicated:

   constexpr expected& operator=(const expected& rhs);
   

   -2- Effects:

   1. (2.1) — If this->has_value() && rhs.has_value() is true, equivalent to value()val = *rhs.

   2. […]

   […]

   constexpr expected& operator=(expected&& rhs) noexcept(see below);
   

   […]

   -6- Effects:

   1. (6.1) — If this->has_value() && rhs.has_value() is true, equivalent to value()val = std::move(*rhs).

   2. […]

   […]

   template<class U = T>
     constexpr expected& operator=(U&& v);
   

   […]

   -10- Effects:

   1. (10.1) — If has_value() is true, equivalent to value()val = std::forward<U>(v).

   2. […]

3. Modify Table 64: swap(expected&) effects [tab:expected.object.swap] as indicated:

   Table 64 — swap(expected&) effects [tab:expected.object.swap]

   	this->has_value()	!this->has_value()
   rhs.has_value()	equivalent to: using std::swap; swap(value()val, rhs.value()val);	calls rhs.swap(*this)
   […]

4. Modify [expected.object.swap] as indicated:

   constexpr void swap(expected& rhs) noexcept(see below);
   

   -1- Constraints: […]

   -2- Effects: See Table 64 [tab:expected.object.swap].

   For the case where rhs.value() is false and this->has_value() is true, equivalent to:

   if constexpr (is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<E>) {
     E tmp(std::move(rhs.unex));
     destroy_at(addressof(rhs.unex));
     try {
       construct_at(addressof(rhs.val), std::move(value()val));
       destroy_at(addressof(val));
       construct_at(addressof(unex), std::move(tmp));
     } catch(...) {
       construct_at(addressof(rhs.unex), std::move(tmp));
       throw;
     }
   } else {
     T tmp(std::move(val));
     destroy_at(addressof(val));
     try {
       construct_at(addressof(unex), std::move(rhs.unex));
       destroy_at(addressof(rhs.unex));
       construct_at(addressof(rhs.val), std::move(tmp));
     } catch (...) {
       construct_at(addressof(val), std::move(tmp));
       throw;
     }
   }
   has_val = false;
   rhs.has_val = true;
   

[ 2023-03-22; Reflector poll ]

Set priority to 2 after reflector poll. "Not clear if all these wording changes are needed or desired." "Unconvinced that the mixed-value-error swap should use value(), source is destroyed immediately anyway. The else branch should use remove_cv_t too."

Currently the value_type of std::expected can be a cv-qualified type, which is possibly intented. However, LWG 3870 disallows std::construct_at to construct objects via cv T*, which breaks std::expected<cv T, E> because some operations are specified with std::construct_at ([expected.object.assign], [expected.object.swap]).

I think when T is cv-qualified, it would be better to store std::remove_cv_t<T> subobject while sometimes (other than construction/destruction) access it via a cv-qualified glvalue, which can also avoid UB associated with const/volatile objects.