There are nuances, yes, and the analogy was perhaps not the best becasue like all analogies it eventually breaks down.
This one might be better. A mathematical law might say that for all instances where x>0, y>0, and z>0, x+y+z>0. Suppose somebody claimed that when you use numbers that are exact to the thousandth place, the law doesn’t hold true because of rounding - so that the more exact you get, the less the law holds up as being true.
What would you say about that?
A positive number will never round to a negative number so no matter how exact you get, the law would remain true. There is no technicality that can alter the accuracy of the law, and any “rounding” the experts do to come up with a different result is just sleight-of-hand. Sophistry. Which seems to be one of the bragging rights for lawyers, who gain their fame by twisting and maneuvering the evidence and arguments so that an unexpected outcome results.
They say that anything can be proven by statistics, depending on how you twist them. If the minute rules can be twisted to say the opposite of what everybody has always understood them to say (such as a ruling concluding that brigade commanders can lawfully order a foreign invasion without presidential approval, when everybody agrees that brigade commanders can’t do that), there is either a problem with the rules or with the people who are twisting them.
At what point would you question whether the “experts” were engaging in creative sophistry rather than being faithful to the intent and genuine meaning of the rules?
Nope. Your first analogy was perfect for the situation.