I definitely like this clarification and it shows that you recognize the difference between the people who interpret statements outrageously literal to invoke a reaction vs those who interpret statements outrageously literal to bring to light perspectives that may arise among seemingly little vague situations that are missed in its documentation since some may lack the complete context of relevant use of the rule.
Here’s an example I have become worried about roleplaying due to this rule not because I don’t understand how it should most likely be implemented per intensions of its writer but because of the possibility for misinterpretation of its contents by its judgement bearer….
As an engi, power has just been set up completely due to diligent efforts by staff to speed up the process in hopes of creating more time for a roleplay bit.
One engi, atoms, and the CE have been asked to assist with the construction of a basketball court.
The CE volunteers to take primary responsibility to caretaker duties and passes out radios so they don’t miss urgent requests for their roles getting overwhelming for the volunteering CE.
As they are working on the court, a scientist overheard they ran out of welding fuel and looked everywhere for more to no avail but this science remembers seeing one next to an old anom.
Unfortunately, they don’t know how to describe where it is but can walk there using the things they remember being present around the area.
If this scientist is caught taking the 5-10 minute walk to rediscover the welding fuel for engi, did they abandon their role?
If so, what is the just punishment.
If not, how similar of a situation be to this that just barely qualifies as abandonment of their role.
I believe that, sometimes, having a member in a role doesn’t give other members in other roles who could potentially depend upon that person any right to receive a measurable level of product, from zero to maximum.
I advocate for the scientist who does the “not programmed utility designed” route of scientific research. A scientist who asks for volunteers to preform surgery on crewmembers to learn how many organs and their properties so they can share this knowledge with medical.
I advocate for the engi who of course could be helping the other 3 rebuild science after a bomb but instead helps a passenger build a bootleg shop in one of the ships space cavities.
I advocate for the entire station to agree to go on the big space asteroid that has an underground dungeon literally abandoning the ship for large periods of time to do an exploration mission.
All of this to say, i think including in some way that abandoning your role is against the rules if it can be linked to the fall or destruction of other non-antag roles and the station’s ability to function properly should it be clear that it would have definitively functioned properly had that players actions not been performed.
Or not, who’s to say what other developments could benefit the community from specificity.
Maybe too much specificity could lead to the disadvantage of the community.
My opinion is that this rule uses general language to accommodate far to many specific circumstances.
Either way, i feel we are greatly under-appreciating the fact that everyone involved with this rule change cares enough to consider its affect short term, long term, and everything in between. Thank you Reisama and everyone for the incredible work 
(Change note) added the word “possibility” in the section “Here’s an example I have become worried about roleplaying due to this rule not because I don’t understand how it should most likely be implemented per intensions of its writer but because of the ********* for misinterpretation of its contents by its judgement bearer….” Placement marked with”*”