Yes, quite sure it reads that way. That is indeed one of the peculiarities. My initial thought about it, however, had been the more general, "Why not in the 8600, 7500, etc?"
I had in fact been running it in an 8600/200, with a high-end 1MB cache chip installed, but have found the machine to be slightly unstable with the 200 MHz dual 604e processor, with random system hangs being a pest. So I replaced the paste between heatsink and processors, and tried again all day yesterday — no better. But recently I came into possession of a 9500/180MP, and this morning I thought I would swap the processor from the 9500 into it to see what happened. It now seems that I can't make it crash. The whole machine, including system and cache/memory bus, has slowed to 45MHz with the dual 180 MHz processor, and most likely this is the explanation.
I will, when I get a moment, try the card in an 8500 and 9500 to see what happens. However, if the 200MHz card did not ship in the 9500, I wonder if in fact it must not have shipped in the 9600, the same machine that was ramped up to a 233MHz single 604e. Maybe the dual 200 MHz 604e processor would work more stably in a 9600 (not the Kansas, I know about that).