I am not an engineer and understood the problem immediately.
Calculating and checking the solution wasn't required, for it was an additional trivial step, that I would only undertake if I needed to know the value of x.
Understanding the mathematically precise version (according to the engineers) took longer, because it had additional information that was not required. I had to review the problem to check my understanding of it was correct, for aside from being longer, it used English words surrounded by brackets as additional instructions in a problem that originally only used mathematical symbols, if not precisely correct ones, according to the engineers.
(Solve for x) should be obvious to anyone not programmed to only think one way, although pointing out that this was incorrect is perhaps correct.
While it is important to teach things using absolute precision from time to time, this should be done in moderation. I suspect that by forcing and enforcing the use of absolute precision, the ability to subsequently think in ways not absolutely precise may be reduced. This might be useful if you want to modify the way people think in different nations.
Humans are not computer programming language compilers. Always expecting and enforcing the perfect use of a single particular method when expressing a problem that is intended to be solved prevents alternative methods from being used or tried. Optimization requires us to constantly create and try alternatives, not to mention attempting to both shorten and simplify things.
Choosing methods of expressing problems based primarily on teach-ability may prevent students from learning for themselves. Choosing methods of expressing problems based primarily on teach-ability probably prevent the teachers from learning as well, which in turn may affect the students ability to learn from them. These observations may not apply to this particular example. I am not a teacher, so these observations might be more appropriately called guesses or assumptions, or bullshit. If I apply a mathematical method of explaining them I think they might be called explanations of possible interpretations.
I don't know which specific "completely precise" definition of the word equation you are applying to what the author of the summary termed a "problem", so I certainly don't know if your claim that the equation lacked the precision of mathematics is correct. I do know the author of the summary also used the word 'work' and the word 'procedure'. I have now read many differing definitions of the word equation and am little wiser. Unfortunately, each explanation I can understand and interpret in many different ways.
If I could improve mathematics myself, considering myself a well-intentioned perfectionist, I certainly wouldn't waste time being draconian with minor variations in the presentation of simple primary school algebra problems. I would create new words for numbers, ensuring they were all single-syllable up to 1,000,000. Or as far as we can, at least. To 100 would be a start! To have to resort to saying twen-ty-two in three syllables is stone age, at best.
And how many times can 2 go into 11 ? (the time spent saying) Does this equal three ? (or not)
Further, I would also create new single syllable two, three or four letter words for every other thing associated with counting, calculation, and mathematics.
This is a worthy job, and no doubt it would give engineers much joy to be pedantic about the precise pronunciation of the expression of the new mathematical terms.
Reducing the time spent saying and expressing numbers and formulas would probably be a far better way to improve mathematics and the teaching thereof. This would also achieve that which those engineers and teachers who program would perhaps most appreciate - a distinct separation between language and mathematics. Subsequent to this we could legitimately expect others to adhere to absolute perfection with no margin for error within what would then be clearly only ever a static and unchanging mathematical domain. I wouldn't join you there.
Getting back to my original point, maybe Americans would be better at understanding the concept of e-quals if it was simplified to just "eh". I know it would have helped me.
Here's hoping I wasn't vague.
