A bit pedandic, but since we're talking about grammar anyway, that should probably be:
> there's one other person (a production assistant), and two cats.
As written, it sounds like the production assistant is separate from the person.
system("echo "Hello, World!"");
Ack about the string literal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition#Restrictive_versus_...
So the source of the confusion is that, in English, non-restrictive appositives typically are indicated with commas, but so are lists of conjuncts.
Of course you are the best judge of what English usage is ambiguous to you, but your suggestion of introducing a comma there is at odds with the convention that you can tell whether a noun following a conjunction is a subject (i e., starting a new independent clause) or an object (ie. the conjunction is bringing together two objects into one collection) by whether it follows a comma. I think your proposed cure is worse than the disease; personally I didn't find lvh's sentence at all difficult to parse.
Interesting, when I first read it I did understand that the production assistant was the person he was talking about. But yes, I can see why it could be confusing.
> there's one other person- a production assistant- and two cats.
> there's one other person—a production assistant—and two cats.
> there's one other person - a production assistant - and two cats.