I am considering if there is research on this, and even if I should do such research.
This is slightly relevant to things like W3W. I don't think they did any research of mis spoken, mis remembered, mis heard, and mis typed, random words, to be fair. Words work well in context and are shit when random from a huge dictionary (especially when beyond most people's vocabulary and available in multiple languages). Heck, even in "context" the classic game of "Chinese whispers" shows how shit this is.
But conveying numbers is a totally separate issue - a much smaller space to play with, except people "group" numbers internally. The whole concept of phone numbers in UK works well with area code (a familiar number sequence) and then number. People cope well with local numbers. They cope well with numbers in neighbouring area codes.
It has been long known that people can "transpose" digits, and this is why some check digit systems (like used on credit card numbers) specifically target digit transposition.
But people can also group sequences of digits in various ways. The ways they are presented with spaces matter. They create patterns. People are good with patterns.
I am well aware of two distinct misdials, and they are quite different.
One is seeing 0XXXX 400 000 and dialling 0XXXX 400 400. This happens a *lot*. We changed to not even publish 0XXXX 400 000 so as to avoid this.
One is seeing 0XXX 0 112 112 and dialling 0XXX 112 112 0.
This latter one is weird, in my view. I don't grasp why it happens, but it happens around 4 or 5 times a month. People misdial Screwfix's number and get me!
This is really not something I expected, which is why I wonder if numbers being mis handled is a topic for research.
We know W3W is crap, but can research make normal grid references and phone numbers better, if we understand how people get them wrong?