I guess the operative word is 'diminish'. When they say the 1701-E has 24 decks and then later refer to deck 26, that diminishes my enjoyment but doesn't prevent it.
But why let something like that bother you? Whenever I hear someething like that, I usually ignore it. It's not relevant to the film's plot. If they missed a detail like Romulans having pointed ears and didn't explain it on screen, I'd be upset. But saying that whomever is in command of a ship being called "Captain" always applies while referring to Kirk as "Admiral" is something I could overlook.
So if Romulans were shown without pointed ears that would be relevant to the plot and that would 'bother' you but if I complain about 78 decks, or pulling 'transwarp beaming' out of their butt to advance the plot, then I should just ignore it?
I would've thought that the idea that internal consistency in fiction was enjoyable and satisfying (and that internal inconsistency
in fiction was unsatisfying) to be pretty uncontroversial. I'm amazed that so much of the commentary boils down to "Stop thinking about it! Stop pointing it out! It's only a movie!!" This is a Star Trek forum, right? Isn't that part of what we're supposed to do?