We're acutely aware, I think, of the vast gap between computer interpreted rules and human interpreted ones. The computer's interpretation may be hard to fathom but is ultimately rigorous. Human interpreted rules are basically vacuous: a human can make anything mean anything, no matter how rigorous it may seem.

All it requires is for other humans to accept your interpretation. That depends both on the text, your position in society, and that of the other person. The text will convince a few people when the difference in power is small. When the difference in position is large, no text will support the person in the subordinate position.

Lawyers pretend that this is not the case, and that they have mastered objective interpretation of the rules. It is unclear whether they say that because they are stupid, or because they think you are stupid. As programmers, who really are trained in objective interpretation of rules, it's laughable either way.