Surprising briefing order

Early this term, CAAF heard oral argument in United States v. Wilson, No. 06-0870/AR. Wilson was a holdover from last term in which CAAF wanted additional briefing and argument on whether "the defense of mistake of fact as to age [is] available with respect to a charge of sodomy with a child under the age of 16, Article 125." See United States v. Wilson, 65 M.J. 254 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (order).

On Friday, CAAF granted review of the petition in United States v. Rigby, __ M.J. ___, No. 08-0029/AR (C.A.A.F. Jan. 18, 2008). The issue was "WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO GIVE THE REQUESTED MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO AGE INSTRUCTION FOR THE OFFENSE OF SODOMY WITH A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN." It's no surprise that CAAF would grant review of that issue in light of the pending Wilson decision. But the final line of the Rigby order did surprise me: "Briefs will be filed under Rule 25." It appears to me that CAAF is essentially ordering the parties to rebrief the Wilson issue, though since Rigby arises from the same service as Wilson, the end product may be little more than a cut-and-paste version of the previously filed briefs. Does anyone have a theory as to why CAAF would order briefs in Rigby?