I'm not an engineer... I don't design systems or products, but I produce the documentation that explains those systems or products to users. I've written repair manuals for military vehicles, process documents for federal agencies, and maintained websites and training documentation in the IT industry.

While I believe that, fundamentally, language is flawed - there's no ground truth (every word can only be defined by other words, so it's wholly recursive) - it's incredibly valuable. But nontheless, MTG is a game of precise language, i.e. 'putting a card into your hand' isn't 'drawing a card' and 'choosing something' isn't 'targeting something.'

These are a few things that annoy me in MTG as a Technical Writer, who's read the CRM for fun multiple times:

• The use of the word 'return,' as in 'return target card to its owner's hand' This implies that the card was previously in hand. That's not always the case. It should be 'put target card into its owner's hand,' or similary as per the card effect.
• Teamup cards like [Borborygmos and Fblthp] should have the creature type 'Cyclops & Homunculus,' not 'Cyclops Homunculus.' If I told you that I saw a cat and a dog yesterday, that would mean something entirely different than if I told you I saw a cat dog yesterday. Put a line in the CRM that says '&' isn't a creature type, and we're good to go.
• Rules text and reminder text have their own separate periods and are divorced from each other. The parenthetical should occur within the sentence, before the rules text's period, and without it's own period. I'm not aware of a style guide that says otherwise (god, I would love to see WOTC's internal style guide).
• I'm not keen on this whole shortening 'enters the battlefield' to just 'enters' thing coming in Bloomburrow. Maybe it's arguable, but enters should be a transitive verb - it needs a direct or indirect object. If cards can 'enter the battlefield,' cards can 'enter the graveyard,' right?

Thank you for attending my TEDxMTG Talk.