Although @Gareth Shepherd recently posted Addressing fundamental math errors close to the issue, I experienced my problem of misunderstanding in class, where two good K10 students were asked to present at blackboard the reduction of $\frac{12-3a^2}{3(2+a)}$.
Self-invented "rule"
The students factored 3 in to denominator, then applied a self-invented rule of "divide numbers by numbers, symbols by symbols", transforming $\frac{12-3a^2}{6+3a}$ into $\frac{12}{6} - \frac{3a\cdot a}{3a}= \underline{\underline{2-a}}$, where - of course - the right hand side (RHS) is correct, but the left hand side (LHS) represents a faulty operation on a fraction in focus here, as the RHS is not a transformation of the LHS (despite the result is that LHS$=$RHS, as pointed out in the blog of Daniel R Collins).
In class, I pose as a proponent for documenting ones (mathematical) actions with rules, and I have engaged in a negotiation with my students, who are used to emphasizing on results only from earlier school experience.
Building knowledge on mistakes
I expect to continue teaching the class after summer, and see the mistake by two relatively strong students asn opportunity to build a faults-are-necessary-culture in he math lessons for this class. Thus, I revisited Lakatos' Proofs and Refutation where both Teacher and Pupils attempt, refute, and improve.
I am looking for suggestions as to how I can use the two students' mistake constructively. Deployment of the misconceptions should meet the following criteria.
Both the two mistaken students and their classmates must feel encouraged rather than intimidated by me bringing up our discussion in the public of the class (thus exposing their misunderstanding). This can be done by not mentioning the discussion, but then I would run the risk of the two students feeling my approach surreptitious - sneaking in on their weaknesses. Hence, I prefer an approach, where I take responsibility for the discussion, and the entire class sees the mistake as an opportunity.
The explanation / treatment should simple enough to be briefly presented, yet sufficiently stringent to state the point that the introduced, self-invented rule was based on an invalid conjecture
The 'proof' tag is mainly intended to the students' lack hereof in their deployment of the self-invented rule.
Edit 1
There are no counterexamples, so the comment of @Amir Asghari is taken into account by deleting, what mentioned a counterexample.
Edit 2
Instead of "indicating" that a transformation is not generally valid by the use of $\neq$, I acknowledge the insight of @DRF -- Students may have a hard time interpreting the symbols, including $=$ and $\neq$, in their original, intended meaning. Thus, it is counterproductive to use (any) sign in class to "indicate" anything apart from what these signs are actually meant to signify. I have thus reformulated my "temptation" to use that sign from symbolic to worded.