This would immediately be useless IRL in cases and is why we try to establish precedence-based definitions of reasonableness. Simple but incomplete definitions work pretty easily in many engineering contexts, especially because you can easily scope the realm that you apply the definition to, but would immediately fall flat in something as large and complex as the legal context.
Honestly the more I study social/political systems, the more obvious it becomes just how much more difficult the problems in that space are than the engineering ones I'm used to...
I disagree. It's not that definitions "fall flat", it's that people don't like the conclusions that are derived from those definitions. If tables are defined as above and are supposed to be taxed at 20% while chairs are taxed at 15%, and someone builds a 1 m-tall chair with three legs and a 1 m^2 seat, that's not in itself a problem. It's only a problem because the government would like that "chair" to be taxed as if it was a table. But a definition can't be incorrect; it's a definition.
Honestly the more I study social/political systems, the more obvious it becomes just how much more difficult the problems in that space are than the engineering ones I'm used to...