Same here. I looked at the intent of the rule given the context. Rules are enforced by humans not robots and are meaningless without context.

When you do try to enforce rules literally, you end up with kids being expelled because they brought an action figure to school, or teenagers being executed because they fell into a flower bed.

You weren't being asked to enforce a rule, you were being asked to determine if a rule has been violated.

Whether a rule has been violated is a meaningless concept outside of the context of enforcement.

Natural language itself must be interpreted within a context.

And yet, the courts and the police are separate entities.

Courts consider the context of enforcement, and police both decide whether something is a violation as well as handling enforcement.

And at least in the US generally you need to have been harmed, or be likely to be harmed by enforcement of a rule to even have standing to challenge it.