> When stuff like this comes up it always seems so weird to me that with all the work that regulators put into this, why can't they at least scratch the surface of providing some specific examples?

Technology is something which constantly changes. From the point of view of the legislator, legal text that is too concrete will stagnate innovation and progress by "locking" people into current technological assumptions. The text becomes inappropriate/outdated when the next wave of technologies come along.

Thus legislators try to document the spirit behind a legislation and try to stay away from concrete implementation details as much as possible, in order to give people maximum freedom to decide how they should implement things, and maximum freedom in technology choices.

So yes, to us implementors it is a hassle because we have no idea what we should concretely do. But we can also see this as freedom to explore how to best implement an idea.

I expect that in the next few months/years, domain experts such as us will debate and decide on implementation best practices.