If you have to ask someone what they meant by their words - if the meaning is not self-evident in the written word - then it's not what was written, is it?Poetry is, by its very nature, open to interpretation. Legislation is a whole other can of worms; needless to say that the ability to apply creative judicial interpretation of law (in the United States, anyway) that runs contrary to the intent of the legislation when the legislators are there to explain their intent because that intent runs contrary to the judge's own political leanings is pretty damn huge problem but as long as both sides of the aisle love it when their side of the courts do it I'm not sure it's one that'll be resolved any time soon.
Jeremy Crawford no doubt has his own opinion. It may even be what he had in mind when he wrote the rule, although that seems doubtful given that he himself has fluctated in interpretation: it seems far more likely that this is a sign of him not being sure what exactly he wrote rather than a sign of him forgetting, and then remembering again, what he had in mind. But even if we are getting his original intention, that is not in what he wrote. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion!