This has already been asked, but I still have some issues with it: It has been established in this question that the ordering prescription is not a function that maps operators to operators, but instead just a map from symbols to operators.
Does that mean, giving an ordering prescription just makes sense when you are given a function $ R \rightarrow R $, out of which you want to make an "Operator-function"? I would like to know if I understood correctly by giving an example here. Let's say $A$ is the space of all linear Operators acting on the Hilbert space. My wild guess is that the Hamiltonian then is a function $A \rightarrow A$, for example (I know this example stems from single particle QM) by
$$ H(\hat{p}, \hat{x})= \frac{(\hat{p}-f(\hat{x}))^2}{2m}.$$
Since I employ a function that is defined on real numbers (taking the square, or subtracting), the definition of $H$ is not well defined, and could yield different results (because real numbers commute, while operators don't). By fixing the ordering of the operators (for example by normal ordering), I remove any ambiguities. Is that the right way to see it?