100% accurate and 100% literal are far from the same thing.

That’s consistent with all the varieties of inerrancy, but those are often very different than literalism. It is, for instance, consistent with the decidedly non-literalist Catholic doctrine of inerrancy, to wit, “The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

I have no clue how the surveyors or surveyees interpreted this, but "100% accurate in all it teaches" does not necessarily mean Biblical Literalism. A Christian probably should believe that the Bible is 100% accurate, but Biblical Literalism has many flaws that should be quite obvious to anyone who has read it.

I can believe the teachings are accurate without losing the ability to understand that the teachings are sometimes conveyed via parable or metaphor. "That it teaches" is doing a lot of the lifting there.