"official interpretation of yWorks Gmb" There is no such thing as an official interpretation, except those made by courts. And your interpretation clearly would not hold up in court. Installation is done as part of the job; the computer is owned by the company (not under control of the user, so he legally cannot ensure to meet the obligations of the license); the employee acts on behalf ot the company. If your interpretation is supposed to have legal effect, it needs to be in the license itself, not hidden as an interpretation ("official" or otherwise) in this Q&A forum.
The problem is this: Let's assume yWorks goes into bankruptcy one day. It is a substantial risk. The liquidator is now forced to use all opportunities to get money out of the company. Every sane liquidator would now go for the obvious interpretation (instead of the one you put forward here): Look for companies who have installed more than one copy (easy to do, since the software sends frequent pings to you to check for updates), and sue these companies for breach of the license, and bill them for their copies (at a high rate, because those copies were illegal).
"A lot of people are fine with using yEd only at work or only at home" It is not about people, but about companies. A company cannot safely use yEd with the standard license because it cannot ensure the "official" interpretation would be respected by liquidator and, even if, it cannot ensure that their employees don't have additional copies. Companies who still rely on the standard license have not read it or not understood its implications.
And just see the signals you are sending: A private user of yEd would be an obvious recommender of yEd to a company,. But if the company has to pay in this situation, he'd be very reluctant to make that recommendation.
"state very clearly" I doesn't state at all, let alone clearly., that a licensee cannot be a company, only an individual.
"I understand that you do not like the implications" No. As already said, the implication is that, for all practical purposes, a company cannot use the standard license. It needs to buy a special, paid license. I'm not criticizing this implication, I'm criticizing that the website doesn't clearly say so. In fact, it doesn't mention anything about paid licenses. It should do and should say when those are necessary. I find it quite odd that there's nothing at all on the website about this. Doesn't your company want to sell licenses and make money?