I see, you were answering my query, not responding to the original assertion. I looked it up and my query should have been answered as follows:
1) There is no minimum threshold for direct ownership. So, A is considered to own the 2% that A actually owns of the parent.
2) There is an implication that parent directly owns some portion of sub (otherwise it shouldn't be described as parent-sub). Perhaps parent owns 94% of sub and person B owns the other 6%, directly.
3) If so, then anybody who owns 5% or more of parent (which neither A nor B does) would be considered to own their pro-rata share of parent's ownership in B.
None of that matters in this case.
Sorry for the misdirect.