Personally, as I read through any rulebook put out by any company, I generally think as I read certain sections, "This could have been written better or been more clear." And I've been known to reword things for better clarity, just as the OP has done. That doesn't mean what I write would work for everyone; and it shouldn't. It should just work for me and my group. I commend the OP for the work they have done to make it more clear for them and their group.
If a book states: "Elves cannot be taller than 5' 5"" then that works for anyone who is planning to follow the book, as written. It's not subjective. It's a simple fact. The book states X and X is what people must follow if they plan on doing it by the book.
Just because people can houserule doesn't mean the rules, as written, shouldn't be good-quality in the first place. One may as well tell people to write their own book if they don't think the book, as written, is good enough. Some solution that is.
The better solution is to make sure the writing is good enough in the first place.
If a book tosses in a weak caveat like "If you don't like it, as written, then modify it to suit you and your group" that isn't a magic wand that negates poor-quality writing. It's a cop-out. Of course people can change whatever they like, from any book — whether the book gives them permission to or not. That kind of caveat statement is barely relevant.
Imagine buying a video game, finding bugs, and having its fans tell you that you are
free to reverse engineer the game to figure out how to fix the bugs yourself. Time and effort aren't free, though. A lot of people think that a product should be well-crafted instead of forcing the users to either become inventors or to drop it.
This is the old "expert in everything" fallacy. A common tactic people opposed to regulations use is to argue from the point of view that people have infinite time, energy, and intellect they can devote to becoming an expert in everything. You don't need a law preventing you from having mercury contamination in high-fructose corn syrup. Instead, you simply can become an expert in the supply chain of high-fructose corn syrup — so you'll know exactly which products that use it are made with "mercury-grade" ingredients and which aren't. This expertise, of course, requires that you get that information from the companies involved, even though there is no legal requirement to facilitate getting them to give you that information. But, really, you and everyone else can be an expert in this and every other aspect of life.
It's a fallacy, just like saying shoddy game design is fine because people can make their own game or mod the game to their liking.
Basically, my point to you is that, while I certainly appreciate the vote of confidence, it's not just about me or my group. There are things that are universally-applicable, like writing in a book that elves can't be taller than 5' 5". Some things are just facts, and some of those facts I laid out in my opening post.
