I think the “What it won’t touch” section shows why the entire concept is unsound. Here it is with a different first sentence, and (other than the third sentence no longer matching erm’s reality) it’s perfectly coherent:
> It leaves um, uh, er and elongated versions (ummmm, uhhhhh) alone. Those sound like fillers but they’re doing real work in the sentence, and cutting them automatically would change what someone said. The rule erm follows: only remove things that are sound, not language.
> It also doesn’t touch repeated words, false starts, or long thinking pauses. Those aren’t noise on top of the speech; they are the speech, just messier than the speaker would like. Cleaning them up is an editorial decision about which take to keep, and erm doesn’t have an opinion about that.
Think about it. Cleaning these things-that-can-be-just-sounds-but-can-also-very-much-be-load-bearing up is an editorial decision. At the very least, you need to judge based on the surrounding content whether the removal of an um would change the meaning at all; and I don’t think text alone is adequate for that.
>> It leaves um, uh, er and elongated versions (ummmm, uhhhhh) alone.
Something's already gone wrong here. Uh and er refer to the same sound. Uh is the American spelling. Er is British; to them a following "r" like that is just a kind of vowel.
Regardless of American vs. British spellings, those are not the same sound. Some British people may pronounce them the same. Americans definitely pronounce them differently, though. For instance, the word “water” has a hard “r” sound at the end; Americans don’t pronounce it “watuh” like some British people do.
Um… no. Quite different vowel sounds.
(Also, in case it wasn’t clear: I was quoting from the start of the article in that sentence.)
They're quite different vowel sounds in the same sense that "back" and "back" use "quite different vowel sounds" when pronounced by American vs British speakers.
But not in any other sense.
> in case it wasn’t clear: I was quoting from the start of the article in that sentence.
You don't seem to be quoting from the article at all, actually. You've combined two different sentences in a way that grossly misrepresents what the article says. But that's not really relevant to the point here.