I can't even figure out why this parses. "mi pe ca" seems to be missing a sumti. (And, okay, I see, by looking at the formal grammar, that GOI are followed by a term, and "term" includes tag(+KU), which includes "ca", but I guess my question is "why can GOI be followed by any term, and not solely by a sumti? What does it even mean, exactly? Exactly for the type of example you have here? "lo gerku ne ri'u cu blabi" ("The dog, which is on the right, is white"?) Although that makes things like like "la maik goi fa'a cu damva'u" parseable but unfathomable (I mean, okay, there at least an aleph-null amount of utterances that are parseable as well as unfathomable, but this just seems to be fundamentally weird, although it does allow tags on non-brivla-based sumti (KOhA, ZO+valsi, LA+cmevla, etc), which wouldn't otherwise be possible, which I guess directly relates to the original question.
Gee, I've come around 180 degrees from my first impression. I guess it IS a pretty good thing. Wish it had been mentioned in the CLL, though, which I don't see.
--gejyspa