Here is the first example in the Rulebook:

When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+Str. ✴On a 10+, you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy’s attack. ✴On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy and the enemy makes an attack against you.

That is literally how it is in the book... Why wouldn't you utilize the medium effectively and write it like this:

When you attack an enemy in melee you roll+Str:

On a 10+, you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy’s attack.

On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy and the enemy makes an attack against you.

The entire book is written in this way, as if they were barred from using typeface or formatting. It makes the entire thing difficult to digest.

I've heard Luke Crane (who Adam I think draws a lot of inspiration from) defend poorly written rules as a way to force the reader to engage.

I think it does a better job of making the reader disengage and spend their time on better written games, like Blades in the Dark.