I see it that both proponents and opponents tend to interpret or use it to mean “seriously, definedly bad” rather than the implied usage of “indicative of a problem”.
Usually, the only “it” in the conversation is the thing itself, not any additional fact about the thing, so that “It is problematic” under your second implied usage becomes “It is indicative of a problem about itself”.
That’s the problem with the usage. It doesn’t identify any actual issue, it just says “it has a problem”. “Blah blah is problematic.” How? Why? No indication.
That’s odd. I’ve generally seen ‘problematic’ followed by an elaborate discussion of exactly how and why, often in excruciating detail.
I generally see it followed by an excruciating monologue, full of sound and fury, equally signifying nothing.
I see it that both proponents and opponents tend to interpret or use it to mean “seriously, definedly bad” rather than the implied usage of “indicative of a problem”.
“It is problematic.”
Usually, the only “it” in the conversation is the thing itself, not any additional fact about the thing, so that “It is problematic” under your second implied usage becomes “It is indicative of a problem about itself”.
That’s the problem with the usage. It doesn’t identify any actual issue, it just says “it has a problem”. “Blah blah is problematic.” How? Why? No indication.