When the law needs interpretation like this to be valid, it is not more interesting, insightful, or useful than saying:
The lack of have a program that flawlessly achieves objective X, is the result of the programmer’s map not accurately representing the fact in the territory that typing a certain sequence of characters and compiling would produce such a program.
A more interesting, less fundamental law, would be that:
A large class of “bugs” or defects in software is the result of a mismatch between a person’s assumptions, beliefs or mental model of the problem domain (a.k.a. “the map”), and the reality of the corresponding situation (a.k.a. “the territory”).
The map-territory metaphor applies to the actual program (or even a specific test case) and your understanding of the actual program (test case), not hypothetical program that would solve the informally-specified problem if it was available.
Note that the change I recommend as an improvement does narrow down which territory the law refers to. The problem with the original is that it doesn’t actually specify anything like what you said.
When the law needs interpretation like this to be valid, it is not more interesting, insightful, or useful than saying:
A more interesting, less fundamental law, would be that:
The map-territory metaphor applies to the actual program (or even a specific test case) and your understanding of the actual program (test case), not hypothetical program that would solve the informally-specified problem if it was available.
Note that the change I recommend as an improvement does narrow down which territory the law refers to. The problem with the original is that it doesn’t actually specify anything like what you said.