I was looking at this detail in FOR-EACH and realized it was a kind of general question... in parameter slots that take dialects, how often should we take that argument literally in order to make it easier to have it act as a dialect?
We can kind of clearly see here that the decorators belong on the variables "doing the picking", not the material being iterated or picked from...
This makes me think I may have erred in switching FOR-EACH variables to be not-taken literally.
I switched:
for-each x [...]
To:
for-each 'x [...]
I thought it was justified by the fact that @x would bind and keep the binding, and the decorator. That allowed for-each @x [...] to do the right thing, even with a non-literal slot for the @x.
But with $x becoming a "thing", if you let that evaluate it loses the $. So FOR-EACH wouldn't know you wanted the picked thing to be bound. You'd have to remember to write:
for-each '$x [...]
But that pattern simply wouldn't work with:
for-each '@x [...]
You can't "reuse the binding" of something you quoted that has no binding. 
Switch It Back?
If it changes back, you get uniform behavior:
for-each whatever [a b c]
for-each [whatever] [a b c]
That means you can just write:
for-each $x [...] [...]
And it will work.
I can certainly see how it's nicer in the long run to use the literal parameter. But it throws you a bit of a curve-ball educationally.
Consider also 'x being able to have its own dialected meaning in a block or not.
for-each 'x [...]
for-each ['x y] [...]
That's more powerful. But it's also in some pretty confusing territory for beginners, having to deal with that slot being literal.
I'm torn about it, but this for-each $x [...] case does really have me thinking that it should be changed back. Seeing that you'd have to write for-each '$x [...] but then for-each '@x [...] wouldn't work makes me think it's just healthier for that parameter slot to be dialected, and you use a GROUP! if you need to escape it... which is very rare.