the need to make the second step not being indicated.
In the Puck clue the normal "definition" part is comprised of a "definition" based on the result of an *indicated* wordplay.
I'm sure I've seen "definitions" before now (probably in the Guardian) which depend on indicated pre-processing - I can even recall one Araucaria clue which had no definition at all - just two wordplays yielding the same result.
Ximenes changed his view (or at least his stated one) on indirect anagrams over time - in the slip comments he allows indirect substitution where the result can be uniquely determined (he gives the example 'the cup that cheers' for TEA) and states that he uses them himself - in his book he proscribes them altogether; Listener rules proscribe only "unobvious indirectness".
BTW The Puck clue was:
Type of fun guy reportedly got putting hand under jumpers as well (9) for TOADSTOOL) Replies: