Rulebook queries

Two things I noticed in passing while I was reading the rulebook to research a reply in another thread. (Note that this list is not comprehensive. There are roughly 987,456 errors like this to query if I gave the rulebook a full copy edit):

1: "If Krid plays Computer Hacking (text: "Action. Bleed at +1")"

The current text for Computer Hacking is "Bleed with +1 bleed".

2: "During play, you will turn cards sideways to "lock" them, indicating that the cards have been used for some particular purpose or effect.

Is this correct? Cards can be locked without being used (Mind Numb: "Put this card on an unlocked vampire and lock him or her".) Locking indicates that the card is unable to be used for any purpose or effect, not that it has been used.

Locking is the new term for tapping in Vtes. They are equivalent, and locking does not indicate anything other than a “spent” card, which needs to be unlocked (untapped).
The rule book is fully updated to include this change.

Except that locking doesn't really represent a "spent" card. A card locked by Mind Numb is not "spent," meaning it's effect was used up or exhausted and this is what caused it to lock. It was simply locked and therefore its effect is unable to be used. This latter description is what locking actually means. I still maintain the current definition of locking in the rulebook is not correct.

Are you simply arguing that the semantics of the word “lock” rather than “tap” aren’t adequate for the purposes of this indication?
Mind Numb used to say “tap that vampire” if that helps?

No, I'm not discussing the change from "lock" to "tap" at all. I'm referring to the following line in the rulebook:

"During play, you will turn cards sideways to "lock" them, indicating that the cards have been used for some particular purpose or effect."

I'm arguing we have a misleading description of what "tap/lock" means. Things can "tap/lock" without being used for some particular purpose or effect (See: Mind Numb).

Oh, okay, I see what you’re saying.
The description not being all-encompassing doesn’t really bother me. The technical implications are clear enough.