Played through it twice. Once judging whether the actions violated the letter of the rule, and once whether they violated the spirit of the rule. The first time every decision was hard and I felt like some contradicted my earlier decisions. The second time was considerably easier and I got a higher agreement score.

I would have expected it to be easier to strictly apply a simple rule, but it turned out that interpreting the intent of the rule was less contentious and easier to apply. Ambulances in the park are not a violation, not on the grounds that some other rule overrides the no-vehicles rule, but that they don't violate the spirit of the rule.