The problems of “inerrancy” must revolve round the Chicago document that used it, because the word itself has as many caveats as the Bible is said to have, like all English words (you must understand that I’m English, so am more sympathetic to the Lausanne Covenant than the US standard!).
But I don’t see why using round numbers is an error in the first place - I would be extremely annoyed if, when I said I’ve been married for 40 years, some pedant said, “You’ve made a mistake, it’s 41, actually.”
Likewise, “accommodation” of any kind is not error but … accommodation. I’d actually say that to speak of the Bible “accommodating to ancient science” is anachronistic. “Science” is not at ANE concept, and in any case I’d argue that in most of the cited cases the Bible is describing colloquially what the ancients saw to be the case phenomenologically, not what they believed to be the case theoretically. But that’s another discussion.
So likewise, I would take it ill if I said the moon was shining brightly last night, and the aforementioned pedant asked me whether my error was because I was simply operating on outmoded science or whether I was accommodating to the ignorance of my hearers. No, dammit, I was using language colloquially, and truthfully. There was no error.
Likewise if the genre of historical reports of battles follows the conventions of the time in bigging up the numbers, the error would have been for the Holy Spirit to impose some western 21st literary standard (which one? Journalists bias, sociologists estimate, aggressors suppress - and mathematicians don’t write historical accounts anyway).
And so on for many other kinds of example (not to mention the many that are claimed, but not established because, to be frank, the critics have often been shown not to know as much as they think they do).
There therefore rests a responsibility on the faithful reader to seek to understand the meaning of the Bible, and necessarily to get it wrong sometimes, since we are not of those times, even with our academics and even with the gift of the Spirit. That’s only really bad news for Fundamentalists whose claim is not so much that God should be truthful, as that we should be incapable of error. It’s not a problem not for Conservative Evangelicals.
For even at the start of the Reformation, William Tyndale said that the literal meaning of Scripture was infallibly true, but that the literal meaning could include allegory, poetry, metaphor, parable … and so on for the biblical era genres of which he had no knowledge.
My answer to your question, then, is to evade any one word descriptor, because the process always seems to lead to one being bamboozled into denying the divine authorship it claims for itself, along with its human authorship (with the emphasis being on the divine speaking through the human, not the human accessing the divine).
So if one decided one’s description was to be that Scripture is “awesomely fabulous” (to be quite arbitrary), some radical would say that since Ezekiel 23 or 1 Chronicles 1 aren’t awesomely fabulous in polite academic society today, Your BioLogos Statement on Awesome Fabulousness is very problematic. And since we now know the Bible is in error on Ezekiel 23, what else do we have to call into question?
Defending “awesome fabulousness” would seem to me a waste of effort - my reply would be “But didn’t not the prophets speak from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit? That’s what the same Spirit confirms to my heart.”