I understand what you’re saying with “epistemic” and I don’t use the word “error” casually.
Maybe you should carefully read and understand the thorough pali + eng. text audit laid out before you decide whether it’s deemed worthy of being labeled “error” or not.
B. Sujato’s translation of V&V as “placing the mind & keeping it connected” is not only an error purely from a translation standpoint, it’s wronger than wrong in several aspects.
The evidence is there, you just need to read and confirm it. It’s almost identical to if we were to translate vāca (vocalized speech) as
“sound waves emitted from the mouth that hit the ear drums of the listener”.
That translation is not untrue, but it’s only a partial truth and it omits the most important part of vāca. If you were to plug that translation everywhere in the pali suttas, that would be coherent in isolated contexts, and not untrue, but holistically it would be incoherent in making the Dhamma pieces fit together and have coherent, consistent meaning.
I hope everyone can see that translating vāca in the pali suttas as “…sound waves … hitting ear drums” is A GRAVE ERROR. Do I really need to engage in open dialogue without presuming to skip to a resolution on that? I could do a detailed pali + english audit for that as well, but it should be obvious pretty quickly the problem with that translation is that it removes the aspect of communicable meaning in language ( of vāca).
In exactly the same way, B. sujato’s translation of V&V as “placing the mind and keeping it connected” removes the aspect of communicable meaning in language (of V&V)
There are many more problems besides that, but that alone is enough to justify it as being labeled an ERROR.