But what I think you disregard is the practitioner’s preference to copy and paste arises because either that’s specific language that has either been litigated

But what I think you disregard is the practitioner’s preference to copy and paste arises because either that’s specific language that has either been litigated and a court has ruled on what those words mean (to that court anyway), or you’re trying to implement the same deal as all the other contracts with the same provision, so why write it differently? In the best case scenario, the new, carefully crafted language will be interpreted exactly the same way as the old language, and in the worst case scenario, it will be interpreted as meaning something totally different - because if the drafter meant to say the same thing as everyone else, why didn’t they just use the words everyone else uses?! I’m not particularly defending this state of affairs, but precedent counts for a lot - not just in common law legal decisions, but in contracting as well.