Outside the Hourglass and Disarm

Once it was ruled that Disarm can be played from the Damage inflcited by Outside the Hourglass. This Ruling was derived from  [LSJ 20100630] (A ruling that is BTW missing in the Card ruling list)

I cannot find any post where this ruling was rescind, therefore I conclude this ruling is still valid.

But the Rulebook clearly states:

Environmental damage: Any damage not inflicted by a minion either as a strike, or by an explicit effect (“this minion inflicts...”) is environmental. Environmental damage can have no source (such as the damage inflicted by a Carrion Crows) or a non-minion source (such as the damage inflicted by a retainer). Note that environmental damage cannot be dodged, since dodging only protects from the opponent’s strike.

Outside the Hourglass in neither a strike, nor explcitly states that "this minion inflicts", it just says "inflicts" wich could be interpreted as being from the minion, but is not conform with the rulebook for damage from a minion.
Sicne I assume that this is just an oversight, and the damage is intended to originate from the minion, I propose either reflecting this in the rules (i.E. emphasize that inflcit is the important word here, as carrion crow i.e. states that the opposing minion "takes" the damage for example), or changing the card text of "Outside the Hourglass" to "this damage inflicts" to reflect the written rule.

You are right about OtH not following the exact sample wording from the rulebook but they are the same....the combination of the effect coming from a minion card (which generally is to have the minion do/trigger something stronger than normal/more than usual) and the text saying “inflict” makes it mean that the damage is from the minion (its how the English language works in this case, implied source from the one taking the action/triggering the effect)...to word it “this minion inflicts” would be clearer but both mean the same that it is by the minion.

Another card using the same wording:


 

Catatonic Fear is s strike and therefore compliant with the rulebook.

The Problem is, that the Rulebook is written in a way that an implication is explicitly not allowed, it explicityl states that it has to be explicitly stated.

Therefore this pasasge should be rewritten to either allow such implicit statements, or that Environmental damage is explicitly decalred as such (as us the standard nowawadays) or the card should be rewroitten in such away that it is unequivocally clear that the card follows the tempalte the rulebooks lays out.