Question 1: Out of range. Suppose the claim is non-chemical. The purpose of the specification is to explain the scope of protection recorded in the claims. The protection scope of your original claim is "A+B+C+D+E+J", that is, although the technical scheme with the widest protection scope recorded in your manual is "A+B+C+D+E", you did not ask for this protection scope in your claim, but gave up this relatively large protection scope. Select the technical scheme "A+B+C+D+E+J" with smaller protection scope as the exclusive right. This amendment obviously deletes the technical features in the exclusive right and expands the scope of protection, so I think this amendment violates the provisions of Article 33 of the Patent Law.
Question 2: Although the revised claims seem to be within the protection scope of the original exclusive rights, some of the revised subordinate claims are obviously not recorded in the original claims and belong to the newly added subordinate claims. I think this is also inconsistent with the provisions of Article 33 of the Patent Law.
You can look at the explanation of "revision" in Chapter 8 of Part II of the Review Guide.
In my opinion, Article 33 of the Patent Law is a controversial clause that needs to be analyzed in specific cases.