> Or perhaps one should not assume anything about accuracy just from the numeric presentation of the value

One common convention is that the value is written in a way that matches the accuracy. For example, you would never write 73.458 +/- 0.1 because the last digits are meaningless given the accuracy. Similarly, if you measure distances with a tape and round you inputs to the nearest cm, you wouldn't give areas in square mm. In turn, if you give the area in mm^2, then this implies that you think your error bounds are precise enough for this to make sense.

So it is not about readers not "assuming things" but a pretty explicit, though wrong, claim of precision on part of the previous post.