I understand your objection and want to preface this by saying of course I’m not out to hijack your vision for the Eucharis.
But to explain where I was coming from, I’m sure you didn’t miss the back and forth I had with Gallant about the roles of engineers, ICly and OOCly. From that, I was left with the understanding that major damage, ones causing system failures, would be described by the GM, and that other relatively minor damage would be either ignored or RPed by the engineers at their personal discretion. In reference to this combat engagement, the only description of damage was “(simulated) damage to the main cannon and the port sublight engines.” The phrase used, “causing damage,” didn’t seem to me to indicate any really urgent damage the way “knocked out,” “ripped up,” etc. would. Further, the only other mention of the engine was from Ramiro, the helmsman, and he didn’t mention any loss in maneuvering power. And since there hadn’t been any back and forth between the Mainspace and the Bridge about the damage, I had no other indication. So when given to me to do damage control, with the information I had and the fact that engineering was behind the other sections in terms of progressing through the simulation, I opted to make it light damage and readily fixable.
You're certainly right that your mental image of leaking antimatter and radiation is not "light damage." At the same time, I hope you can see that from my perspective the implication was that damage was light and that I had no real reason to ask for more details.
Now, I’m perfectly happy to go back and edit my posts to make the damage more extreme; it would simply make the engineering problem more difficult and thus more interesting/fun. But in the future, I think it would decrease misunderstandings and let the RP flow quickly if major damage is described in some level of detail, perhaps by way of listing systems with major damage on the Damage Tracking page for the Eucharis.
At any rate, let me know if you want me to change my posts.