Yes, problems are not unique to Slavic languages, but at least for _some_ Slavic languages, Cyrillic has been taken to the most simplified form that is _accidentally_ easy to process on a computer too.

But yes, I was a bit too absolutist, I agree — as ever, everything is more nuanced, so perhaps not "trivially provable", but in "closer to full differentiation in graphical representation while being simple and unambiguous to process on a computer"?

Perhaps people misunderstood me: it is not a _technical_ property of Cyrillic (vs Latin) script per se, but a combination of historical setting and ability to adapt the script to the (smaller) group's language. This has led to Cyrillic scripts being _developed_ to be technically more suitable for Slavic languages, because where Latin script was used, there was not as much liberty (perceived or real).

I mean, either is just a set of pictograms representing parts of spoken words, and obviously, if developed similarly, there is no difference between them. But for Slavic languages they were _not_ developed similarly, which is my point.