Dear Andre,
in my view there is no contradiction within the AMC text quoted: "runway with no performance limited procedure" is explained by the example "no requirement to follow a contingency procedure for obstacle clearance".

The requirement for categorising an airport as Cat A to have "at least one runway with no performance-limited procedure for take-off and/or landing" means that one single runway that has no EOSID (or other performance-limited procedure) is sufficient. In this respect it should be noted that a physical runway, e.g. 08/26, consists of two "single runways", i.e. 08 and 26. So if 08 requires an EOSID and 26 does not, the condition "at least one runway with no performance-limited procedure" is fulfilled and the aerodrome could be classified as Cat A (unless other conditions require a B).

Hi Andre, I understand that your assumption "If this means that the presence of an EOSID on any runway precludes category A" is not correct.

If ALL runways require EOSID then no category A is possible.

If just one runway -as a minimum- DOES NOT require EOSID then category A could be possible.

Hi Andre,
I had your same doubts on interpretation. We have EOSID for every runway in every airport of our network: does this mean that we should classify all airports as B?

There is an unofficial reaction from EASA;

After discussing with the operational engineers who followed the rulemaking, we agree to add the following sentence to the AWO implementation manual:

‘The contingency procedures for obstacle clearance requirement implies that as long as one runway has no limitation on the engine out contingency procedure for the intended operations, the airport will be categorised A.’

Good news, however we have to wait for a formal announcement.