It can certainly be less comprehensible, but:

1) No benefit is not in evidence. The article links to another article describing a prior study and gives the following example of a "center-embedded" clause and a replacement [1].

The center-embedded version:

"In the event that any payment or benefit by the Company (all such payments and benefits, including the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof, being hereinafter referred to as the "Total Payments'), would be subject to excise tax, then the cash severance payments shall be reduced."

Their improved version:

"In the event that any payment or benefit by the Company would be subject to excise tax, then the cash severance payments shall be reduced. All payments and benefits by the Company shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Total Payments." This includes the payments and benefits under Section 3(a) hereof."

The immediate problem that comes to me in reading the "improved" version is the ambiguity about the word "This" in the 3rd sentence. Is "This" referring to the "Total Payments", or is "This" referring to the payments that will be reduced? Both are interpretations one could read into the paragraph. If Section 3(a) describes non-cash benefits, the intent of the paragraph might be to note that those specific payments will also be reduced, even though they aren't cash payments.

Regardless of the overall comprehensibility of the center-embedded version, it is crystal clear that the payments in Section 3(a) are included in the term "Total Payments".

And while this might seem like needless nit-picking, it's worth remembering that court cases around things like the death penalty have hinged on whether "cruel and unusual punishment" requires that a punishment be both "cruel" and "unusual" before it violates the constitution. Words matter in law, and being very specific with your words to convey your intent also matters.

2) One can not conclude that the reason for including center-embedded definitions is because of "magic incantation" thinking from the proposed study. People often use parenthetical statements (even in spoken word), and they often do so when they're wanting to clarify or further define a possibly ambiguous turn of phrase. But parenthetical statements are less common in narrative prose. To ask people to write definitional text, and compare that to narrative text they've written and conclude that the parenthetical statements in the definitional text were chosen for "magic incantation reasons" instead of say, "because as I wrote that, I realized I should be clear what I was talking about" seems like a huge leap of logic unsupported by the established facts.

It's common in recipes to tell someone to "do X until Y" (e.g. "fry until golden brown", and not "fry while not golden brown"), yet very few programming languages have such a control structure. "while" loops, "do...while" and "for" loops are all common, but "do...until" is something I can recall encountering once, and don't even recall the language. But from this we certainly can't conclude that people writing recipes think that "do...until" gives magic incantation powers and weight to their recipes. It just means in separate contexts, different language structures are more or less useful in different types of prose and given their surrounding context.

[1]: https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ways-lawyers-written-documents...