The permissibility of transmitting a report by meaning is a well-known scholarly dispute. Some permitted it for competent narrators under conditions, others restricted it to particular situations, and some adopted a stricter approach.
The disagreement is not simply whether changing words is always objectionable. It turns on whether the original wording is remembered, how exact the equivalent expression is, the narrator's competence, and the potential effect on legal meaning. A permission framed for qualified people is not a license for someone who cannot distinguish nuances.
The secure conclusion is that the original wording remains the standard of textual preservation. Even proponents of conditional permission do not authorize a change that distorts the report's intended meaning.