I raised a similar point in March 2017 - I suspect the same underlying process is the issue. I recall finding that such misclassifications in both company officers and officer appointments (as you report) were not uncommon. I don't have a list of examples to hand but if CH were minded to investigate I'm sure I could dig some out.
My query related to the categorisation of non-human entities in the company officers list using the "human" values for "officer_role" (e.g. a company being classified as "director" rather than "corporate-director"):
@mfairhurst advised that they'd investigate this as a data issue and they should differentiate between human and non-human roles. However I didn't hear back and I just rechecked a couple of examples and the problem still exists.
For info: from my post above my first two examples have disappeared from Beta/API data set
( /company/06909966/officers, /company/06903160/officers) but the following are still present and incorrect (as they were in Mar 2017):
/company/03196419/officers - CORPORATE NOMINEES LIMITED - listed with "officer_role": "director"
/company/03184321/officers - "BONDLAW SECRETARIES LIMITED" - "officer_role": "nominee-secretary"
My post also references this earlier post: