Here's a quick stab at it... https://twitter.com/jon_ckhan/status/1382406579429990406

If there is a legitimate legal dispute (i.e. anything that goes before a government decision-maker) there will always be ambiguity. The good advocates find the ambiguity and magnify its relevance with a plan to argue why it should be resolved in their client’s favor.

The ambiguity is either one of law or fact. For example, it’s not clear what a legal principle really means, or what actually happened on the facts. This ambiguity cannot be resolved by looking at previous cases. Anything that can, by definition, is not an ambiguity.

A decision maker’s job is to resolve the ambiguity. And it is a key element of our legal system that the decision-maker resolves only those issues that are argued — i.e. the ambiguity in the case.

How does a decision-maker resolve a true ambiguity? It can't be by looking at previous cases; because if they could, as I said, by definition there would be no ambiguity, which, also as I said, doesn't exist in a legitimate legal dispute.

If the advocates have done a good job at highlighting the ambiguity, the decision-maker almost certainly relies on something that is uniquely human. And this should remain true as a fundamental principle of an effective legal system.