The fact that you agreed with the majority answer to each of the individual questions, 100% of the time, does not mean that there is widespread agreement on the rules, which is part of what this article gets at.

But there is widespread agreement. Looking at the graphs, the only questions where opinions are in the 40%-60% range are the bike and the tank memorial. Neither of those two is even in the 45%-55% range, and on everything else, there's an even clearer majority. So even this intentionally and unrealistically vague rule would work in practice. This proves the opposite point of what's claimed here.

I don't think the rule was intentionally or unrealistically vague at all - to the contrary, it was extremely straightforward, and the directions ask you to ignore any preconceived notions, such as laws in your jurisdiction.

What's clear to me from the graph - and the author of this article - is that it's unlikely for any one person to agree with any other one person on how the rule should be enforced - in at least one (or likely many) circumstances, you will probably disagree.

You think that any rule in any realistic scenario would be just a single sentence containing an ambiguous word without any known surrounding context, clarifications, examples, or rationale? I've never seen such a thing. This scenario is completely contrived, and still, it kind of worked.