The spec does try and make it simple to build compliant devices for basic features. It's only if you want higher power or bandwidth than the existing USB 2.0 that you need any kind of digital logic.

For instance, a USB-C analog headphone adaptor is just some resistors and the connectors themselves, and a USB A-C cable just requires a single extra resistor so the USB C device knows there is a USB A plug on the other end and not to draw too much current. Unfortunately, dodgy manufacturers got even that wrong, see https://www.extremetech.com/computing/217556-google-engineer...

The spec sure is a mouthful, but I find strong evidence that the spec isn't at fault.

The reason is the most common type of error: USB type A to type C cables using a wrong termination resistor value, signalling far too high current. We're talking about a table of currents to resistors with 3 rows: Default USB current (56K), 1.5A (22K) and 3.0A (10K).

Now, if the mistake had been in the parts that deal with orientation detection, PD protocol, alternate modes, or just dealing with the high speed signals pumping up to 40Gb/s through these cables, then we could agree that it might be complicated.

But if you can't pick a resistor from 3 values, then I don't know how one would write a spec that would be readable to you.

EDIT: s/that\ the\ evidence/that\ the\ spec/

Easy to say.

I can't imagine doing signaling and having to build a spec.

Any spec will always have some way of building devices that violate the spec but happen to work some of the time. There's no way around that, which means that blaming the spec and complaining that you "need to throw out working devices" isn't going to help you.

You were talking about how many combinations there were of cables, which is always solvable by choosing the good cables. There is no cable type for defective devices, so that does not change anything.

What the rPI did would be akin to a micro-USB device using data pins for power. Such device would be defective, and not "another type" of micro-USB.