Remember, there is no such thing as "Rules as Written". That's a fairly recent internet philosophy which really means "I believe
my interpretation is correct, you should listen to
me".
Reading is an interpretive activity. Two people can read the same passage and come to two entirely different conclusions. That alone should be strong enough evidence to show that "RAW" is a fallacy.
To lessen that chance of occurring, you not only need more text (which is difficult when you have a limited word count), but you need to have a firm grasp of the system itself and all its nuances and implied understandings (which is what GMs are for).
The first can be alleviated through FAQs. Imagine how thick the Core Rulebook would be if it included the entire FAQ. The second can be alleviated by not stubbornly limiting your understanding to a narrow viewpoint using limited resources.
