The vocabulary bound to Consent.except.actor.role is insufficient

http://www.hl7.org/FHIR/2016Sep/valueset-consent-actor-role.html

I expect that the Consent.except.actor is to be used to define exceptional cases that are based on an actor. That is when an actor is requesting access to data, they might be allowed/denied access because of their identificaiton as an actor.

Doctor Bob can have access.

The dominant form of Actors are those taking some action. Yet the vocabulary given seems restricted to the kind of actions that would result in data creation. I think these are similar concepts, but are on different sides. That is we need in Consent.except.actor a prospective activity based actor role; where the vocablary given is post action.

How would one say "Any actor that is a part of the care-team"? I can see how Consent.except.actor.reference can list the CareTeam; but what would I place into Consent.except.actor.role?

Is the use in Consent.except.actor intended to either list a reference, or list a role code? This would make more logic, and I would support this as partial solution to this comment. However even if this is the case then the role vocabulary seems not very useful.

is the role vocabulary intended to hold an institutional 'Access Control Role' value (e.g. RBAC), or Compartment?