The problem is that the "instructions" of a card aren't defined anywhere. To me, it makes the most sense to consider it anything on the card that isn't conditiopned by some "when...".
Thinking of the on-play effect of Noble Brigand as being categorically distinct from that of every other card makes less sense to me...
It makes a lot of sense to me, since it's worded differently than every other card.
And wyh wouldn't the wording of Noble Brigand be technically correct? It does exayctly what it says, it just does so with adiffernet timing than other cards.
I think this perspective makes sense given that while-in-play effects are not replaced by Enchantress. That means there is some specific part of each card's text that constitutes an instruction, rather than the entire card text. It seems instruction needs a formal definition somewhere.
Noble Brigand's card text is really weird now that I think about it. It says do something when it is played, but it was already played by the time that instruction is reached. In theory, you can argue that Noble Brigand does nothing on play because you can't activate the when-played trigger when the card is already in play.
Well, if Noble Brigand's text has been confirmed to be an anomaly, there isn't much that can be done there.