I came across this distinction between shall and will in Fowler’s *Dictionary of Modern English Usage*:

> 
> That-clauses after *intend* or *intention*, *desire*, *demand*, *be anxious*, *&c.*, have *shall & should* for all persons. Among the *&c.* are not included *hope*, *anticipate*, & the like; but the drawing of the line is not easy; roughly, *shall & should* are used when the word on which the that-clause depends expresses an influence that affects the result, as a demand does, but a hope or fear does not; a serviceable illustration is *expect*; mistresses expect (i.e. demand) that their maids *shall* wear caps; but we expect (i.e. are of opinion) that tomorrow *will* be fine.
> 
> 
> 

He enumerates a few more examples, one of which is, “And it is intended that this *shall* be extended to every division and important branch.”

I acknowledge that it’s been about hundred years since its publication, and that Fowler was more pedantic than I could ever hope or want to be, but I had to wonder about the changes in what we call the “mandative subjunctive” in the intervening time. For example, I would have written the sentence, “It is intended that this *be* extended to every division and important branch,” in preference to *shall*. But had I written *shall* or *should*, would the meaning of the sentence have changed? Moreover, is there any meaningful difference between *shall* and *should* in this case? Maybe only among hyper-fastidious speakers?