Ok, so we're coming at this from entirely opposite directions. In technical terms, you're reading "something" as invoking an existential quantifier, whereas I'm reading it as invoking a universal quantifier. So for you, an area can be Heavily Obscured so long as there are sufficient places for a "something in the area" to not be seen. For me, an area can only be Heavily Obscured if, for everything that is "something in the area", it cannot be seen.An observer only suffers from Blinded "when trying to see something in that area", so as long as there are sufficient places for things to not be seen, it works.
I must confess that I don't understand how your reading is a plausible interpretation of the text. But English is notoriously bad at unambiguously referring to specific quantifiers, so I guess it shouldn't be that surprising to see this kind of ambiguity crop up.
Don't forget that the Heavily Obscurement applies to objects too, and they can't pick where to stand. It also applies to unaware creatures that don't know to try to not be seen.Yes, if someone put their face in one of the gaps in the canopy, I could see it, but that's not where someone would be to not be seen.
That's not true. For a very trivial counter example, "opaque fog" is listed as providing Heavy Obscurement. That pretty unambiguously refers to fog that is sufficiently dense to constitute an opaque area, I hope?That's what I've been telling you. The vision rules don't require considerations of opacity at all.