There's one for Nigel to get his teeth into here. The advice for reopening schools and nurseries says:

children under 2 years need 3.5 metres squared per child

(and similar phrases for other ages.)

Ok. Now there is scientific, business, engineering and established convention for such things of saying '3.5 square metres' if that is what you mean. So was there a deliberate intention to avoid saying '3.5 square metres' and say '3.5 metres squared' to denote they meant the somewhat rarer convention that 3.5 metres squared means 3.5 metres by 3.5 metres, which is about four times as big?

I think we all would agree it is worth knowing whether they meant the smaller space or the larger space.