I was inthe Army, not the Navy! In my brief but eventful military career, I did integrate with naval personnel and spent some time on ships and naval operations installations. I used to notice this sign on display, "There is the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way"!
In photography, there are many right ways to do any particular job. There are many levels of precision, quality requirements, and usage-sensitive requirements. I think there are even more wrong ways. The further you deviate from the right way, the more potential there's for failure and more costly and time-consuming work to make corrections after the fact. I hate the expression "quick and dirty" because the execution is quick and the results are oftenties very dirty.
Sometimes on threads where a method or equipment is inquired about, some folks seem to go out of their way to encourage the OP to do things that are likely to fail or deride time-honoured and proven methods even if they are not all that complex or expensive. "You don't need to do all that, you are killing a flea with an elephant gun" kind of things oftentimes lead to serious inferior work.
The best approach is to consider the optimum way of doing the job as per professional opinions and then extrapolate, modify, extract, improvise the method bur, at least, adhering to the basic principle, in this case, that is flat, even consistent lighting and the use of a lens that is reasonably corrected and suitable for copy work.
The best way to kill fleas is with flea spray or powder- the stuff that is intended for that job.
After all, as someone alluded to, you can shoot documents with a Minox- I mean is WAS the archetype "spy camera" used for surreptitiously recording blueprints and top-secret documents, but I doubt if the quality would be all that readable.
Well, I never did find out exactly what the "Navy way" was supposed to be, after all, I WAS in the Army!