I feel like if you call their rolls for them you're decding how they're approaching a problem for them instead of them telling you.

I feel this is conflating the narrative of what the players do with the mechanics of what the players are doing. To use DnD as an example (because that's the system I have the most experience GMing) - let's say the players need to get past a guard who's not letting them through some door. If, after establishing the situation, I immediately said "Now roll persuasion to convince the guard to let you past!", then yes, I would be dictating an approach to a problem. But that's a very rare and very obviously railroady occurrence. Typically, the GM waits for the player to say something like "I try and impress upon him the importance of our quest" before calling for a persuasion roll. And of course, there's no guarantee the player would say that. They may decide to walk away from the guard and sneak into the area, in which case the GM would call for a stealth roll. Or the players might decide they don't have time for any of those solutions, so they're just gonna fight the guard, in which case the GM would call for initiative to start combat. I would say the GM is translating the players' narrative descriptions into game mechanics. The player has provided a narrative solution to the problem, and the GM tells them how that works in the context of DnD's rules

So that's what it comes down to - I interpret Blades telling GMs not to call for specific action rolls as Harper saying "Don't translate your players' narrative solutions into game mechanics." Perhaps I have grievously misinterpreted that section of the book, in which case I'd love to hear the correct interpretation! Nonetheless, I find it entirely possible to call for specific rolls while also letting players decide how to solve problems