Interaction of activities 2 and 3

UT Judge Mesher says in CPIP/3024/2017 :-

“Activity 3
5. In relation to activity 3 (managing therapy) the Secretary of State relies on the decision of
Upper Tribunal Judge Gamble in CSPIP/386/2015 (from which several paragraphs were set out in
the notice of appeal, although unfortunately a copy of the entire decision was not attached). There
the judge held in paragraph 14 that as a matter of statutory interpretation the existence of the
specific descriptor 2e (needs assistance to be able to manage a therapeutic source to take nutrition)
(the reference to 2c in that paragraph must be a mistyping) means that that assistance cannot be
taken into account when applying the descriptors in activity 3. The general principle underlying that
decision was approved and applied by Judge Bano in the decision AS v Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions (PIP) [2017] UKUT 104. Since that decision has now been reported as [2017]
AACR 31, which means that it has the general agreement of the judges in the Administrative
Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. I understand that the point about the interaction of
descriptor 2e with activity 3 may be revisited by three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal in two
appeals where a hearing is pending.”

This was in March 2018.  Anyone know if a three-judge panel have decided any different, or are in the process of?