judges-guide question: 102- Illegal Main Deck

Hi everyone,
not sure if this is the right section to ask it. Feel free to move the discussion in case.

Me and some other princes of Italy are confused about how to interpret this rule of the judges rule (in object).
In particular, we think this passage is not clear

How do we define it is an "error on the decklist" without introducing some personal interpretation? What is the exact rule in this case? what parameters?
I mean, a set of rule should be an instrument everyone uses to determine if something is (or is not) allowed in a certain context. And this interpretation should be as objective as possibile so everyone, using the same ruleset, can take exactly the same decision on a particular case.

e.g. a foul inside the penalty area is a penalty kick, no matter the level of football championship we're playing. Every referee can apply this rule and if he consider it's foul, he can decide if it is a penalty (or not).

I personally think this specific chapter of the judge guide doesn't behave as expected and I have some practical cases in which the decision taken by the vtes judges could not be in line with what I read here.
Not sure if it's the case to make it public or not, since we're talking about some of the highest vtes level tournaments in the last year.
Let me know what you think and I'll be hapy to share

HeadCleaner is missing the last part of the quote,

"Penalty:

Game loss, and then be instructed to make any changes necessary to make the contents of the deck match what is recorded on the decklist. The changes must be complete before the next round begins for the player to continue in the tournament."

As I see, you either correct the decklist or make the deck compliant to the decklist but even in bona fide the player has to get his Game Loss.

Thanks for the prompt answer

I respect your point of view, however it's still not clear how does the penalty applies and I can't accept a simple "it's judge decision" when the rules are too vague. Otherwise judges have too much decisional power -based on their interpretation- and that's not a good thing imho. Also, I don't think this is educative for players, who find themselves with different behaviours in each tournament they attend, and since rules should be created mainly to preserve the game experience, that is not the way to create a common (or "the most common as possibile") game experience.

What happens if I deck-check a player before final and I discover the decklist is illegal? I can apply several ways of punishment, based on my interpretation.
And what happens if exactly the same episode happens in another tournament with a different judge, whom applies a different penalty?
That's not objective, in my opinion, and moreover it's not fair (if two players making the same mistake are sanctioned in different ways based on interpretation). I can accept that there's a margin of interpretion by the judge, who has the last word on the decision, but only if the ruleset offers a valid instrument to do so, with plenty of examples and procedural suggestion. Even better if this examples are constantly revised based on real examples and particular decisions thas has been taken in the past.

Please take seriously into consideration to enrich the judge guide with more examples (even real examples from previous major tournaments, in order to create precedents on which judges can rely and base their decisions, like real judges do in law) and procedures. Another good idea could be to allow national communities to adopt specific code of conduct and maybe in the future we will have (at least) a continental code of conduct based on tournament experience