Apologies in advance - long post.
"What we need is a definitive description that cannot be interpreted differently by two people reading the rule."
This is the distilled essence of a rule: to prevent (or at least limit) subjective, arbitrary, and inconsistent enforcement of class requirements.
If the literal wording lacks sufficient clarity to preclude this, but the purpose be known and agreed upon, the specific language for the rule should be delegated to a person familiar with just this sort of task (regardless of whether they were qualified to parse the content).
I spent some decades in civil service where I assumed just such a function due to the repeated failure of the original authors to make their decisions clear enough that no excuse could be made for failure to comply, and that the same parameters would always result in the same decision, regardless of the identity of the official. It's not that difficult, it just requires a practiced eye for loop-hole detection, elasticity of description, vagueness and self-contradiction of terms, etc. You don't have to have a better grasp of the physics to improve the language - it's a different skill. Many posts here in this thread have already improved the quality of the existing rule.
If the powers that be wished to effect a remedy without the need for formal simultaneous meetings, they might begin by requesting objections to specific rules with those rules receiving the highest number of responses (and closest deadlines) going to the head of the list.
Then any member could submit a proposed wording in parallel with the original and notes indicating why this was needed.
Every objector is CC'd with every proposed change, and the top 3 (by endorsement: "I like this one") go back to rules for review.
Less work for the rule people, more input from the aggrieved, everyone interested can be on the same page.
Diagrams and photos of bikes that passed and that failed should be posted here, with lines super-imposed to reduce the volume of potential questions.
