There are very tight bounds and what you call "unconscionable" I read at first as "unconstitutional", and on second thought as "unbelievable" which is pretty mu

There are very tight bounds and what you call "unconscionable" I read at first as "unconstitutional", and on second thought as "unbelievable" which is pretty much the opposite of "unambiguous", because of "ex falso quot libet" (from false assumptions follow arbitrary consequences). To a degree you are correct of course, a judge has to judge consciously and if a contract is deficient, the contract cannot guide a conscious decision, but only if awareness of the deficiency nullifies the whole contract. If you let a computer program make decisions, thats your conscious decision to do so. The way programmatic code can improve on it by automated tools is burdened with the same level of complexity, if not higher than Natural Language. But Smart Contracts are, as the name implies, intended to be used for small, manageable bits of code. Never mind codes that are too big to handle for a single person, bugs from a single typo for example could still happen. There's simply two sides to that. Either strict enforcement is thought to promote improvements in code quality. Or lenient apologies hope to promote amicable values, as far as trust is concerned, e.g. if due diligence also implies to inform whether a likely mistake was intended or not. If the other party knew of the mistake that may be a "Versteckter Einigungsmangel" (covered up, hidden; Agreement; lack of, deficiency - hidden deficiency of agreement). In that sense no smart contract would be enforcable, because the conscious decision is deferred - post hoc ergo propter hoc. The deciding difference is, if there's an automatic arbitrage bot for example, and it's not aware of the mistake, the creator has no liability to check for mistakes, I suppose. Whereas if exploits are targeted at buggy programs, that's a different matter. The deciding factor would be the custom of the trade. Custom comes from costume. So if a foolish script kiddy exploits a huge bank they will suit up and claim higher right from custom. Vice versa, a kid exploited by automatic gambling bots e.g. will be blamed for wearing a suit to big for it's size. /s