Application Scoping - Inconsistent Behaviour on New Dictionary Entries

[The SN Nerd]

For the 'Catalog Item' table, I am trying to create a new Dictionary Entry in a Scoped Application.
I get the following error message:

"Invalid 'Table' selected on the Dictionary Entry record. The 'Catalog Item' table is in application 'Global', but the current application is 'DevKIT/RDB'. The 'Table' field can only select 'Global' tables with read access enabled."

AS shown below, 'Read access' is enabled for 'Catalog Item':

You might then say 'Allow configuration' isn't checked!

However, take a look at the User table:

Note that 'Can read' is checked, and 'Allow configuration' is not checked.
However, I am able to create fields in my Application Scope for that table.

I then selected 'Can create' and 'Can update' on the Catalog Item table to reflect the same setting as the User table. 

It matches the exact same Application Access setting as the user table, for which I can create Scoped fields, but I still cannot add a Dictionary Entry to the table.
Only setting 'Allow configuration' allows me to do this, but I don't need to do this for the User table.

So, what is going on here? 
Is the error message incorrect, and/or is this a defect?

[Chris Sanford1]

True, that notification is misleading. I'm curious how you got that? If I create a dictionary record in a different scope, Catalog Item is not an option on the table dropdown for me. I'm on Kingston.

Update: Nvm, I figured it out, if you click configure dictionary on the table the new button automatically populates the field. Strange indeed.

[The SN Nerd]

Yup, that is what I did.

[Chris Sanford1 · Accepted solution]

FWIW, here's what I found on the docs:

https://docs.servicenow.com/bundle/kingston-application-development/page/build/applications/concept/...

Let me know what they say, I'm curious!

[The SN Nerd]

It's probably a bug that it can be done on the User table then!

[The SN Nerd]

This was essentially what they said.

The error message was 'misleading' but they did not classify that as a Defect.

The tech is going to raise an enhancement request.