Is there room for "reasonable" interpretations of questions, when those questions are somewhat poorly worded, and there is enough information around the question that (perhaps strongly) supports the interpretation?
Here is some context. When taken literally, expressing the Pareto-optimal allocations in terms of $A$'s demand does not mean anything, since demand functions are irrelevant to what is Pareto-optimal. However, the Pareto-optimal allocation can be expressed as a function of $A$'s allocation, and this interpretation of the question makes perfect sense given the intended answer shown.
The exchange in the question linked above should make clear my views on this, but I realise that I should probably seek community consensus on this.
There is another possibly related meta-question here. However, I think the difference is that I am asking about circumstances when it seems relatively clear what the OP actually means, even if they are not able to convey it 100% accurately. Of course, whether we have room to decide whether it is clear what users asking questions mean is potentially up to debate. Note in particular in my first link that the issue in the question seems to boil down to a single word, and this case might inform the discussion about whether there is in fact room for doing so.