In the Digital Design and Computer Architecture by David Harris, Sarah Harris the authors explain what are propagation delay and contamination delay in the following way:
The propagation delay \$t_{pd}\$ is the maximum time from when an input changes until the output or outputs reach their final value. The contamination delay \$t_{cd}\$ is the minimum time from when an input changes until any output starts to change its value.. . \$t_{pd}\$ and \$t_{cd}\$ may be different for many reasons, including different rising and falling delays..
So I draw from the bold text (emphasized by me) for any circuit there is only a pair of these measures values. That is to say, if a circuit has a different delays for its rising edge (transition from 0 to 1) and falling edge (transition from 1 to 0), \$t_{pd}\$ is about the longest between them, and \$t_{cd}\$ - about the shortest.
The authors show such circuit to define the critical and short paths:
and then expand on the aforementioned measures by stating that taking notice of both the critical and short paths, it is true for this circuit:
$$t_{pd} = 2*t_{pdAND} + t_{pdOR}$$ $$t_{cd} = t_{cdAND}$$
Let's suppose we encounter the very case: that AND gate has different delays for its rising and falling edges. Does it mean these equations might be wrong? There is the falling edge shown in the picture. So if this edge is quicker in terms of delays, it is either nonsense to use \$t_{pdAND}\$ here (because it indicates the slower rising edge measure but we are talking about the falling one) or \$t_{pd}\$ is not relevant to the matter in hand at all (falling edge).
As I'm concerned, for these types of situation it would be reasonable to exploit two different pairs of values: one for a rising edge and another for falling one but this is out of line with the bolded author statement. What's the right way to address these possible circuit delays differences?