Nested route policy failing

Question

Any thoughts on why ::/0 is accepted in this example?

Per these documents, the accept in the sub policy means it will match the condition in the parent and action in the parent will apply. But this clearly isn't the outcome in the example.

"The action specified in a subroutine is used to provide a match condition to the calling policy. If the subroutine specifies an action of accept, the calling policy considers the route to be a match. If the subroutine specifies an action of reject, the calling policy considers the route not to match."

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/routing-policy/topics/concept/policy-configuring-subroutines-in-routing-policy-match-conditions.html

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/routing-policy/topics/concept/policy-routing-policies-subroutine-evaluation-method.html

group xx {
    ...
    import [ test1 test2 ];
    ...
}

policy-statement test1 {
    term deny {
        from policy [ default ];
        then reject;
    }
}

policy-statement default {
    term match {
        from {
            family inet6;
            route-filter ::/0 exact;
        }
        then accept;
    }
    term no-match {
        then reject;
}

policy-statement test2 {
    term allow {
        from {
            family inet6;
        }
        then accept;
    }
    then reject;
}