normatively, https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#unusual-words applies to

... words or phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon

so far, so clear. in the definition for "unusual or restricted way" though, things get confusing in the example given https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-used-in-an-unusual-or-restricted-way (emphasis mine)

The term "gig" means something different if it occurs in a discussion of music concerts than it does in article about computer hard drive space, but the appropriate definition can be determined from context.

this example seems to suggest that context can be used to exempt the use of a word in a restricted way/jargon?

but if that is the case, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the SC? isn't the intent of the SC to fail where a non-specialised user, or someone with say a cognitive disability, can't figure out the meaning without that specialised knowledge to give context? a reader who is unfamiliar with the specific field/area/context will still struggle to understand a restricted/jargony word, no? otherwise, if context is indeed a consideration (and can be used to exempt the use of words that are unusual/jargon), then isn't that an enormous loophole where in most cases a site can claim that its context is clear enough to absolve it from having to define its words? it's still used in a restricted way, just that the restriction is clear? and does that then exempt if from 3.1.3?