While I believe explaining things in as simple a manor as possible is a worthy goal towards effective communication, I would not want a BSIP to eliminate important details to give the impression of simplicity when a deeper understanding is required. Comments to "explain it like I'm 5" are fine, but can also give a false impression that it's "easy" to achieve the stated goals. That can be misleading and skew the assessment of the costs to implement.
Whilst I agree that we shouldn't dumb-down complex Bitshares documentation, I believe that attempting to write the document in an ELI5 friendly manner can improve the readability of the document, especially for users for whom English is not their first language.
I understand your point though that pushing the ELI5 approach could give the false impression that the proposed work is easier than it seems, best to inflate the cost and deadline for any work and overdeliver/overestimate rather than underdeliver/underestimate?
Simplifying a topic so 5 year olds can understand it could translate into a very limited understanding and open the door to manipulation by the lack of essential details.
This could possibly be the case, and I invite all constructive criticism or theoretical attacks against proposed BSIPs so as to prevent manipulation being possible via the ommision of key requirements.
Semi-relevant: I have published my draft BSIP-020 which was split from the original BSIP-019 draft so as to separate the functionalities in scope.
Thanks for the comment, much appreciated and great input! :)