Change:
Generally, use "this document" rather than "this specification". Then use the term specification judiciously. Prefer the term "language" to "platform".
Yep, environment is a nice synonym of platform. Thank you for addressing my concern!

Discussion:
"array" in particular do not take on a generic meaning, such as they would in a general programming context. <del> Additional terms used in this specification are defined below. </del> <ins> Additional terms used in this document are defined below. </ins> 1.1.1. <del> This specification models the argument as a tree of JSON values, each with its own node.  A node is either the root node or one of its </del> <ins> This document models the argument as a tree of JSON values, each with its own node.  A node is either the root node or one of its </ins> descendants. <del> This specification models the result of applying a query to the argument as a nodelist (a list of nodes). </del> <ins> This document models the result of applying a query to the argument as a nodelist (a list of nodes). </ins> So nodes are the selectable parts of the argument.  The only parts of an object that can be selected by a query are the member values.

's popular JSONPath proposal dated 2007-02-21 JSONPath-orig, builds on the experience from the widespread deployment of its <del> implementations, and provides a normative definition for it. </del> <ins> implementations, and provides a normative specification for it. </ins> inspired-by-xpath describes how JSONPath was inspired by XML's XPath XPath. JSONPath was intended as a light-weight companion to JSON <del> implementations on platforms such as PHP and JavaScript, so instead of defining its own expression language like XPath did, JSONPath delegated this to the expression language of the platform.  While the languages in which JSONPath is used do have significant commonalities, over time this caused non-portability of JSONPath expressions between the ensuing platform-specific dialects. The present specification aims to remove platform dependencies and serve as a common JSONPath specification that can be used across platforms.  Obviously, this means that backwards compatibility could not always be achieved; a design principle of this specification is to go with a "consensus" between implementations even if it is rough, as long as that does not jeopardize the objective of obtaining a usable, stable JSON query language. </del> <ins> implementations in programming languages such as PHP and JavaScript, so instead of defining its own expression language, like XPath did, JSONPath delegated parts of a query to the underlying runtime, e.g., JavaScript's "eval()" function.  As JSONPath was implemented in more environments, JSONPath expressions became decreasingly portable.  For example, regular expression processing was often delegated to a convenient regular expression engine. This document aims to remove such implementation-specific dependencies and serve as a common JSONPath specification that can be used across programming languages and environments.  This means that backwards compatibility is not always achieved; a design principle of this document is to go with a "consensus" between implementations even if it is rough, as long as that does not jeopardize the objective of obtaining a usable, stable JSON query language. </ins> 1.3.

The parsing of a JSON text into a JSON value and what happens if a JSON text does not represent valid JSON are not defined by this <del> specification.  Sections RFC8259 and RFC8259 of RFC8259 identify specific situations that may conform to the grammar for JSON texts but are not interoperable uses of JSON, as they may cause unpredictable behavior.  The present specification does not attempt to define predictable behavior for JSONPath queries in these situations. </del> <ins> document.  Sections RFC8259 and RFC8259 of RFC8259 identify specific situations that may conform to the grammar for JSON texts but are not interoperable uses of JSON, as they may cause unpredictable behavior. This document does not attempt to define predictable behavior for JSONPath queries in these situations. </ins> Specifically, the "Semantics" subsections of Sections name-selector, wildcard, filter-selector, and descendant-segment describe behavior

Obviously, an implementation can still fail when executing a JSONPath query, e.g., because of resource depletion, but this is not modeled <del> in the present specification.  However, the implementation MUST NOT silently malfunction.  Specifically, if a valid JSONPath query is evaluated against a structured value whose size doesn't fit in the range of exact values, interfering with the correct interpretation of the query, the implementation MUST provide an indication of overflow. </del> <ins> in this document.  However, the implementation MUST NOT silently malfunction.  Specifically, if a valid JSONPath query is evaluated against a structured value whose size doesn't fit in the range of exact values, interfering with the correct interpretation of the query, the implementation MUST provide an indication of overflow. </ins> (Readers familiar with the HTTP error model may be reminded of 400 type errors when pondering well-formedness and validity, while

2.3. <del> In this specification, the semantics of a JSONPath query define the </del> <ins> In this document, the semantics of a JSONPath query define the </ins> required results and do not prescribe the internal workings of an implementation.