> Imagine being asked to count all vehicles in a picture. Would you count your dysfunctional tank frame too? I would because i would certainly lack the context knowledge of its interior. Others might not.

Here we were specifically told it was non-functional. Just as I wouldn't label an AI generated image of a person a picture of a person if there was a sign in the picture saying that it was AI generated. People make assumptions. But when told that a possible assumption is wrong from the beginning I assume I'm being told correctly.

> Imagine being asked to remove all road blocking vehicles from a park. Would you consider the sales trailer someone got somehow in there, even though it basicaly just a frame without engine too?

I'd ask the person asking me to do this for clarification. For your specific example a trailer, regardless, falls under "vehicle" for me. Unless it's on blocks or something that would prevent it from operating.

> The point here is context and changing it does not effect your definition but your interpretation.

What's contextually salient to me given the simple rule of "no vehicles in the park" is what is a vehicle and what is "in the park". Not the presumed purpose of the rule, because I'm not going to assume I know what that is. This is why I have long, long favored (for most of my life going back to K-12 schooling) people telling "why" as opposed to just "what" when it comes to rules.

No, I'm not autistic or on that spectrum. My assumptions just don't always line up with those of other people, and a general desire to be a rule follower conflicts with another desire to not screw things up because of rules or their lack.