Ah, I see the point about 'trying to avoid endemic issues'.
62304 (all flavors) is peculiar in that it supposes to be a process standard but comes dangerously close into wanting to be a product standard(*1) that tells developers how to do in their job. It's my opinion, but I wouldn't waste time trying to establish criteria to tell the difference between 'common' and 'uncommon' defects (for potentially diverse methods of implementation) and establish a specific methodology for only one category (of a given implementation). There is simply too great a variety of 'mistakes' that can be made in any development effort to try focus only on the avoidance. If you look at the referenced table B.2 from TR 800002-1 as some of the examples of 'categories of defects'(*2) there are precious few that would not be uncovered by Testing or Analysis (as always, mileage varies on the robustness of test methods).
That being written, if 5.1.12(a) is all about identifying the defects to avoid it isn't clear to me that 5.1.12(b) brings much value as it presupposes that some of the defects that were 'predicted' might actually be willingly present and intentionally left in the finished product. The point of these two clauses in conjunction may be too subtle for me.
(*1) Some elements of 62304 feel as if this was a standard about the requirements for designing and developing a mechanically fastened object, that certain clauses would divert into specific discussions about driving mechanisms and surface finishes of particular fasteners.
(*2) Locally, we typically utilize multiple levels of test/analysis/inspection for our software (generally this is coded and compiled from text sources). The lowest level is code inspection, and even though we have some routine questions to answer about the code (some specifically appear in TR 800002-1 B.2) so I suppose this 'counts' for the purposes of 5.1.12(a) even though the specific defect types are not called out in a development plan. More likely is the case that the finished product fails a specific test due to a previously unrecognized defect (e.g. a race condition, or an asynchronicity) but in the circumstances I'm familiar with these aren't endemic to the programming methodology. In the interest of full disclosure: my practice has been that when system testing (beyond integration or unit testing) results in a failure due to a specific software defect, in addition to anomaly resolution, I actually do update the RM files to reference the specific failure (often as a potential contributing to a risk item)...but we've always eliminated that anomaly.