[RandomLensman]

You can say "I consider Scheel to be Chancellor", but that isn't the same as Scheel having been a Chancellor.

I honestly don't understand why in situations with a clear ground truth there is a need to debate and why we would want machines to bungle that.

[Kiro]

I don't think it bungled it and I don't agree that there's a clear ground truth here. Quite the opposite: you've only convinced me that the semantic ambiguity is real. It's like debating whether interim CEOs should be included in a list of CEOs.

[RandomLensman]

You are, of course, free to ignore German law and its definitions, but that doesn't change the fact who actually was a Chancellor and who was not. Chancellor is a very well defined role.