I could really write a lot about this, but I’ll have to answer briefly due to lack of time and being on my phone.
I think that there are various cases that involve the “enables” clause that are unclear, even for rules enthusiasts that relish analyzing complicated rules beasts. A lot more can be said about this broad class of rules beasts, but I will point out a specific form of these discussed in this thread: Is white alive under Japanese rules? - #11 by yebellz
The particular example in the specific post that I linked highlights how resolving life and death status can involve computationally intractable problems (such as figuring how big a vacated space needs to be to enable one to play a successful, living invasion).
Another example of difficult interpretation is the psuedo-seki position given in this post: Odd Cases 🤔 in the Japanese Rules - #22 by elsantodel90
This latter example also touches upon how there is an ambiguity of authority, that is, the written Japanese rules are not definitive and the ultimate authority is decisions (for disputed ambiguities that arise in professional games) made by the Nihon Ki-in.
You specifically mention “rational judges”, but who/what exactly qualifies as such? It seems reasonable to suggest that OGS moderators are “rational judges”, but there have been differences in interpretation (usually resolvable by realizing that someone made a mistake) in even simpler cases (such as misjudging a bent-four-in-the-corner situation).