See the circuit diagram above labeled "Excerpt from the reduced Pi4 Model B schematics..." that appears above the spec diagram? That is what I mean by a "conventional" diagram. That is the sort of diagram that people tasked with engineering boards (as opposed to writing standards) are use to dealing with all day. The spec diagram looks like an abstract block diagram, as opposed to a concrete circuit.
Now, you are very likely to say something like "but the spec diagram is a correct circuit diagram and the engineer should be expected to comprehend and correctly implement a circuit using it." And you're not wrong. But unfortunately, as is clearly evident by the frequency of failure to convey the intent of the spec, this expectation is too great. It shouldn't be but it is. That's a difficult thing to accept. For many it is simply impossible to accept. But yet that's the cold, simple truth and standing on ceremony doesn't change it.
When it costs money, in the form of lost sales due to disappointed customers or excessive support costs, "better" (as in more concrete, prescriptive) circuit diagrams are provided. One can see this in the datasheets and application notes from successful component manufacturers. They do this because they have to take the calls when engineers misunderstand things or need their hand held. They do this because they hear from managers and executives when their products are not "easy" to integrate.
Standards authors don't feel this pressure, so the subtle and easily dismissed gap between what appears in standards documents and what people actually want (and therefore pay attention to) is wider. What is wanted is something that appears nearly indistinguishable from what the engineer would expect to see while using Altium or Eagle or KiCad or some other commonly used EDA tool, and not a specification sufficient generalization.