You've missed the point of my comment too. We all agree that the exercise is pedantic by design, and that the goal of the exercise is to show how much variance there is in interpreting them.
The point, that you've missed twice now, is that the results are presented using incorrect language.
A point that does not exist is a point that's not possible to be missed. It's okay to admit you don't know anything about content moderation, and frankly it's a blessing to not know anything about it. Best of luck.
For an exercise that is, by it's own admission, pedantic by design that's a pretty glaring fault