Splitting hairs, yes. But conceded for a bad choice of words on my part.
The point I was trying to make is that the "epiklesis" of A&M has neither "make" nor "show" the gifts to be the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no request in this anaphora for the bread and wine to become (make or show) the Body and Blood of Christ.
Well, again I must refer to a statement I wrote earlier indicating that not all sources agree with your assessment.
Now that I am back to my office and have my references available, I can look some things up. In the article by Peter Cobb titled 'The Anaphora of Addai and Mari', part of the The Study of Liturgy
, he discusses this particular epiklesis as well as the anaphora.
On page 218, Mr. Cobb finishes his description of this Liturgy by translating the anaphora and then adding:
Next comes an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit on the oblation, and a final prayer of thansgiving
So, this author believes the epiclesis is towards the Holy Spirit, and the terminology indicates that there is nothing remarkable about the epiclesis such as what you are indicating exists (i.e., no evidence indicating a lack of intention towards the gifts).
But there's more on the epiclesis, that supprts my earlier contention that there is disagreement among experts regarding this question. Cobb indicates that Ratcliff believes the epiclesis is actually in line with the Liturgy of the Apostles and a communion devotion that was incorporated into the anaphora at a later time. Botte argues that the anaphora used in this liturgy is Semitic in style and archaic, and was introduced into the liturgy in the middle of a prayer that disrupts the unity of this supplication to God. While Botte's argument had in the past been thought to be authoritative, Cutrone indicates that the ommission of the phrase 'in my name' from a recently discovered manuscript of this liturgy very much weakens Botte's arguments.
the well-known liturgical expert Dix, though, disagrees with the addition theory of Ratcliff and Botte and feels 'it is an integral part of the text' (pg. 219).
Your source by Bouyer was cited in the bibliography for this article by Cobb, but was not otherwise referred to or footnoted.