I know. I’m pointing out that we lack the specifics in this sentence, so we don’t have any means of distinguishing which read of the sentence is more accurate.It depends on the specifics. For example,
设计技术= design technology. It shouldn't be confused with 设计(与)技术= design and technology. in anyway whatsoever.
冷却叶片= cool the blade(s). It shouldn't be confused with 冷却(了的)叶片= cooled blade(s). in anyway whatsoever.
I didn’t write the sentence, just trying to help interpret it. And no one’s twisting any meaning. The sentence could be validly be read multiple ways.Just because we have to deal with improperly written Chinese, doesn't mean that it is acceptable. Phrases canbe written better to avoid confusion. And no, we shouldn't try to use improperly written Chinese as an excuse to twist the meaning to one's liking.
When there are no grammar particles in Chinese it’s not always more correct to assume the interpretation with the least additional particle additions.冷却(的)叶片 is even more ambiguous. Rather be 冷却叶片= cool the blade(s) or 冷却(了的)叶片= cooled blade(s).
When there are no specific grammar particles in Chinese everything comes down to interpreting silent relations between subject object and verb. I’m not confusing the two terms. I’m saying in the context of the sentence we’re discussing it could validly be read as *either* of those two terms.And as I mentioned above, 技术设计 shouldn't be confused with 技术(和)设计, in anyway whatsoever, unless you can't tell the difference of "technological design" and "technology and design". Connecting words that may change the meaning shouldn't be assumed as omitted and let the reader interpret by excessive guessing.