Actually, I'd say "may your faiths be vendicated and your hopes fulfilled" as the word "sustained" suggests no change to the status quo.

As for which types of documents should be easier to interpret, both should be relatively simple to the trained eye IF they were prepared by the competent. The intent in both cases should be to prepare the information such that there is no room for misinterpretation.  In other words, if they are prepared such that they could be misinterpreted, the preparer failed.  In the case of legal documents such as contractual agreements, if they can be easily misinterpreted, they probably are not binding. And that's the reason for securing the services of a trained eye, i.e., attorney or someone equally competent, for they should KNOW not only how to write such documents, but should also KNOW how to overcome the shortcomings of the English language and write accordingly (e.g., "verbal" communication can mean oral or in writing - in both cases, verbs are used; "bi-weekly" can mean twice a week or once every two weeks - so a contractual commitment to "provide bi-weekly verbal status reports" could easily become problematic).

All JMHO, as these things I think I KNOW.

SGE