go'i in nested bridi

["A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

Is it allowed to use {go'i} within a description-abstraction to refer to a "last" bridi within a preceding description-abstraction _on 
the same level_? (lenu broda be lenu A bei lenu A...) If not - how can repetition of the same bridi be avoided?

Example on:
http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?jitri%27u%20%20xu%20venfu

>From the Book p.155, 6.14, I gather that a (even deeper nested) description-abstraction of a bridi is part of the _same_ bridi, 
hence {nei} is to be used:
mi se pluka lenu do pensi lenu nei kei... (with {nei} referring to "mi se pluka...")

This seems to be different with "sentence" parts like "ca lenu broda" which obviously seem to be regarded not only different from 
the "main" bridi, but also standing in a relationship "inner/outer" bridi. Hence the use of {no'a} in p. 156, 6.15:
mi ba klama ca le nu no'a

What difference is between the "lenu nei"part (of the pluka example) and the "lenu no'a" part (of the klama example) to justify the 
different GOhAs? If it's the "ca" prefix making the latter a *separate* bridi - okay, but why then regard it to be in an "inner/
outer" relationship to the klama bridi, although being on the same level (whereas not in the pluka example, although deeper nested 
there)?

mu'o .aulun.