I know, that in XXI century reading texts longer than 20 words can be difficult, so I will enlight you.
In next part you have ammonia WORLDS.
I already explained this.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/ammonia-world-survey-campaign-exploration.614744/post-10099481
Someone who doesn't know that there is such a thing as "ammonia world" as an entirely separate thing from just a rocky planet with an ammonia atmosphere, will get easily fooled by the fact that the CG description
very clearly and unambiguously says that they are looking for "planets with ammonia atmospheres". Those things exist in abundance. To my estimate every 10th-20th system with planets you visit will have a planet or moon with ammonia atmosphere (and classified as such when you look at its details: "Atmosphere type: Ammonia".)
If you don't already know that "ammonia world" doesn't mean that, then you easily assume that when the same text uses that term, it's just a synonym. A shorter way of saying the same thing.
How hard is this to understand, honestly?
Maybe,
maybe, if the CG description had only used the term "ammonia world" and nothing else, there would be more of an excuse. Then it's just a question of me (and I'm sure many others) not knowing what it means, and perhaps looking it up online. However, when the description very clearly and unambiguously starts with "planets with ammonia atmospheres" that sets up the confusion, especially for someone who doesn't know that "ammonia world" is not a synonym.
It only rubs salt to the wound when the conclusion text says “an impressive number of terrestrial planets with ammonia-based atmospheres were scanned and catalogued over the last two weeks." Almost feels like mockery.
(Yes, I know it's completely unintentional, but it just sounds like "haha, look at all those fools who scanned non-ammonia-world planets with ammonia atmospheres! We sure pulled a fast one on them fools!")