Maybe, but typos are usually a single (or few) incorrect, extra, or omitted character(s). I can't think of any simple change that results in what was in the OP making sense.
"Practicablness", then substitute an "o" for the "c" as the first typo, then because the word still isn't recognized by Speel Chequer, someone likely decided to try splitting it up into two words, one of which then at least appeared
somewhat valid (cableness) to a non-technical data entry person. But to my mind, this still smacks of an ESL based issue because of that 2nd step.
Brought back some fond memories of my wife and I laughing over the absurdity of things like this. 30 years ago she worked as a Paste-Up Artist for a publishing company, a job that is now almost completely gone because of Desktop Publishing software. She worked on a lot of technical manuals for the military and would come across things like this all the time. She'd write down technical words and bring them home to me to see if they sounded right or if I could figure out what was being attempted, but she couldn't bring me anything in context (because she was looking on classified documents), so it was kind of a fun game to try to 2nd guess how they ended up like this. It was a bit scary, because many of the manuals she was working on were for things like war planes such as the A-10 "Warthog". One that I remember laughing about was the "Refuting" procedure, which was easy to decipher as "Refueling" but left me wondering if it had made it to print, what would have happened...
Pilot: "I'm getting low on fuel"
Flight Command: "Please follow the Refuting procedure"
Pilot:" "Roger that. I have plenty of fuel."
