Back with the books...
So yes, that's the way they wrote it in 2011. And clearly they screwed up, because if you look at 2014 they fixed the language with respect to marking and suitability. But they confirmed leaving out 690.13(A) [2014 reference]. So the first readily accessible disconnect does not need to meet those location requirements if you install the wiring according to 690.31(G). That was clearly the intent of 2011, to leave out that particular requirement.
My take is that the requirements for no more than six disconnects apply generally for disabling the system, regardless of the location, in both 2011 and 2014; i.e. somewhere you have to have a means to disconnect the system, grouped in one location, consisting of no more than six handles. And I'd say that in 2011 the marking requirement applies generally; i.e. you have to have a disconnect somewhere that is marked. Absolving the remotely located disconnect from the suitable for use requirement in 2011 was clearly a mistake, although one could fall back to 110.3 to make sure that it is suitable.