An interesting thought experiment would be to give the description of the pipe wrench to engineers without telling the what it was or what it was used for. Then ask them to design a tool that matches that description.

Probably much like with software designed from a description, there would be multiple solutions, all of which would meet the requirements given. Some would be better than others, some worse. Some would share common engineering designs, others would be completely unique.

And in the end if someone created a functional and usable tool for the job required (rotate pipes), who is to call those that don't accurately recreate the original wrong in their solution?

I realize by the way that the article is more about precision code like that description rather than writing code from the precision description. But still, there is still the concept that even precise things are open for interpretation.