Friedman and Zeckhauser argue that words of estimative probability (WEPs) are to

Friedman and Zeckhauser argue that words of estimative probability (WEPs) are too vague because they exist as a range of probability. They also argue that a range of probability implies a fixed point and that analysts should use a fixed point from that range. But if all fixed points are the averages of a range rather than an exact scientifically proven number, then they also in a way imply and represent a range of probabilities.
If this is true, explain if fixed points and WEPs actually different? Describe if WEPs or fixed points are the better way to accurately express probability and the clearest way to communicate that probability to a decision-maker?
Use reference : https://www-tandfonline-com.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/02684527.2014.885202