AFAIK, there is no such process as "overboring" (yes, I checked my dictionary). An overbore (noun, not verb) is only a result. Now, what are the allowed means to obtian that result (i.e., the "overbore")? I'm saying, if only for the sake of discussion here, that any means can be used to obtain the allowed overbore (noun here, not verb).
Some of those means might include, for example, boring (not "overboring") with a boring tool in a machine shop (typical), using some futuristic laser to fashion the bore (not so far-fetched), using a repair process that melts and recasts the bore (too expensive), or using a sleeve. A sleeve merely replaces a wear surface, right? Unless it's specifically called out by the GCR as an unacceptable practice, why wouldn't it be allowed? Sleeving is certainly a well-known and generally accepted method of repair to obtain a desired bore size. That's why we already know exactly what it means, right?
Now, to call my own bluff, perhaps a sleeve would be catagorized as a coating, in which case it *would* be specifically disallowed. But my current understanding is that a coating is only a powder or liquid.
I think there's also reference in the GCR to not adding material that was not originally present. But, the worn-out material that a sleeve replaces *was* originally there.
Finally, for possibly the weakest of my arguments, we all know that bearings can be replaced as a matter of course. Many engines have other wear surfaces where a bearing should have been used but was omitted for cost reasons. I don't know, but some have said that a bearing may be installed (perhaps if spelled out in the shop manual, or maybe otherwise) if one of those surfaces gets galled. Isn't that basically what a sleeve accomplishes after a broken ring galls up a cylinder bore?