It's a moot point, but one would consider documents appearing under field 46A being the documents subject to examination for compliance
My view is that if the requirement for a draft appears in field 46A then it would be subject to examination under the provisions of Art 14. If however, it appears in field 42A, and happens to be incorrectly drawn up, it is debatable as to whether it is right that the examining bank should exercise its right of refusal, and recourse under aticles 14 and 16, instead of perhaps, simply requesting as matter of good order, for a correctly drawn up draft to be represented?
Under ICC Official Opinion (470/TA.703rev) which concerned a requirement for all "documents" to be drawn up in English, whereas the draft was issued in a different language, the opinion given was that "For the purposes of a clause such as “all documents must be issued in English”, a draft is not to be considered as one of those required documents unless the credit requires the presentation of a draft drawn on the applicant under “documents required”. Conversely, it is also true that there aare numerous paragraphs in the ISBP devoted to how drafts should be drawn up.
Nevertheless, the main point here is that there appears to be a concession that unless the draft is called for under field 46A, it would not be deemed to be a "document" within the scope of the UCP provisions, requiring final submission to the issuing bank/applicant.