TBF those structures do exist for a reason. Just take the “Total Compensation” as an example. Breaking it out as shown in the paper does work, but now some language is repeated; in an edit (and most contracts are edited rather than being created de novo) one of the duplicated clauses could be edited and the other overlooked, especially if they become separated by successive edits.
The inconsistent-edits problem is a real one; failure to follow D.R.Y. cost a Dallas lender $693K because a guaranteed repayment amount was written as "one million seven thousand dollars ($1,700,000)" and words take precedence over numbers, so the lender was repaid $1.07 million and not $1.7 million.
In another example, the agreed deadline for a party to cure a breach of contract was written as "fifteen (30) days"; the breaching party cured before day 30 but after day 15 — which was too late, because the other party had already terminated the contract, and the court agreed that words take precedence over numbers.
So D.R.Y. is a sound guideline to follow in contracts (within limits; it's not an absolute, ironclad rule).
I’m sure there are obscurantist