No, I'm saying that the people who decide that things should be and/or remain classified will say that it's for operational reasons. WWII was definitely an operation, although it's a long time ago, and it's hard to imagine what might still be relevant to keep classified. If an intelligence organisation procures a CRM for keeping track of operations, and the public tender document says that it must be able to handle 250 operations a month, then they've leaked some potentially sensitive information.
The definition certainly appears to be applied too broadly, but you're not going to achieve less secrecy by limiting secrecy to "operations".
"the public tender document says that it must be able to handle 250 operations a month, then they've leaked some potentially sensitive information"
Maybe you could elaborate on how exactly this is sensitive? (Then we can have discussion about whether or not it's worth to divulge it publicly.) I mean, how does it help criminals to know that your police force has X million policemen? They will have to deal with it anyway.
Unless you are in state of war, and have a single enemy, then such information is not of much help to anyone. However, it can show if the money are spent efficiently. We can look at cases resolved/worked on during the previous time period and compare it with spending.
I claim savings due to these records being public will outweigh an advantage of any enemy knowing things like these. Just like democracies with all the public information about government spending economically beat dictatorships keeping these things secret.
The definition certainly appears to be applied too broadly, but you're not going to achieve less secrecy by limiting secrecy to "operations".