As I said in my first post this particular example seemed so stridently wrong that I thought I'd missed something, that there was a level of irony in the article that apparently doesn't exist.
> "locate" rather than "find"
As it happens... I disagree this example is any better. To locate is to "discover the position" of something; to find is to "meet with or discover by chance" (that's my emphasis, but both are primary definitions from Collins English).
Could be it's just hard to meaningfully extrapolate those class-based connotations forwards 1000 years in an enjoyable pop-sci article.
All of these synonyms have subtly different connotations. In most uses, however, “locate” and “find” (like the other pairs on the list) can be used interchangeably, and the main difference is which one sounds “fancier” (for instance, “I located my keys” instead of “I found my keys”). Often, multisyllabic french or latinate words are used instead of simpler Saxon words by speakers or writers who are trying, consciously or unconsciously, to sound important; almost as often, in aiming for sophistication they just sound awkward.
>policeman-speak is still well-known for being unnecessarily verbose
Policeman-speak is closer to lawyer-speak because police spend a lot of time writing reports that are subject to cross examination in court. Police and lawyers must communicate clearly (in legal-speak) despite any difference in class.
As for the specific policeman example, you are probably right to say that "individual" is used because it is a useful non-offensive abstraction for the various sub-classes of human, but policeman-speak is still well-known for being unnecessarily verbose (from our biased anti-latin perspective as English speakers). Perhaps a better example would be choosing to use verbs like "locate" rather than "find".