The trouble with simplification isn't merely that it's a pain; but that there's only so much of it you can do without promptly wandering into the delightful world of undefined behavior; where the problem isn't merely that people don't understand what the law or the spec says; but that it doesn't actually address whatever the matter at hand is, even if you had an expert to interpret it.
When that happens you inevitably get moved to a more complex state: in jurisdictions that are serious about precedent, or markets where one implementation gains a commanding lead, whoever winged it most successfully at the time of ambiguity becomes(de-facto or de-jure) part of the new codification. In cases where it's more of a mixed result people might end up recognizing two dialects of a protocol or there will be a 'test' named after whatever judge pulled it out of nowhere because it sounded good that you then say you are applying in future cases to choose which of the uncodified behaviors to go with in a given instance. In some cases it remains more or less unsettled and the outcome is basically a surprise over and over and then the codification is basically that you just wing it; which is not ideal.
This is, of course, not to say that all complexity is created equal: the line between 'flabby' and 'parsimonious' is much more subjective than between 'internally consistent' and 'overdetermined'; but there usually is at least a gradient if not a bright line. What gets extra tricky, though, is that law codes (more than some other types of spec) are something that you need to write both for everyone and to cover everyone.
It's basically fine that AS15531or A478-95a(2019) are not really terribly accessible light reading. If you are dealing with now-aging military avionics or stainless steel cables those may well be you problems; but there's not a real sense of societal injustice in the fact that most people just want their aircraft flying and their wire ropes not snapping; so you have the luxury of nerding out however much your circle of professional specialists think is required by the problem and mandating accordingly. Something like probate law is going to end up happening to basically everybody, so the idea that it is impenetrable to the layman seems troublesome; but, because it happens to everybody, it's also not necessarily easy or simple to identify the equivalent of the 1040EZ case: maybe it's super boring and a guy in good health and generally agreed sound mind writes a straighforward will and then gets hit by a truck the next day. Or maybe some dementia patient's declining years see a fight between their children and hey, look at that, now we need a section on how forensic psychiatry will assess 'undue influence' in the context of whether you helped grandma with that will or whether you strong-armed a feeble old lady while she was in your care like your sibling you don't get on with well alleges. That sounds simple and accessible; and not at all like something that will either be completely impenetrable or fairly overtly allow a judge to just spitball it based on whether he hears the dispute before or after lunch and which of the potential heirs looks more punchable.
None of this is to say that Alaska's probate system is not a nightmare accretion, that seems most likely; but it's probably a nightmare accretion with more parts that are actually load bearing than it appears; and possibly one that doesn't have a structurally sound variant that is also simple(especially in potentially adversarial contexts, like probate law: where one of the fairly common instances is "it's as simple as what this will says" v. "actually, there's a complication"; and therefore rules for both what actual complications count and how they work in addition to 'here's how you read a low complexity uncontested will').
