Specsaver I’ve been mulling your comments: yes the theme was easily cracked. I can’t question that you were underwhelmed, and also as you’ve seen from this thread the rubric was difficult to understand - for a bear of little brain.
But I feel I should defend Pabulum against the charge of lazy clueing. Pabulum clearly said that the 25 clues were ‘special’ containing only definition and the contained anagram.
Therefore I would argue that the setter openly created terms of reference that excused those clues from Ximenean orthodoxy.
Just saying!