It is very possible that NDA has been made by people who simply have never written legal documents, and these people had no intent of saying that, indeed, everything you invent during the next year belongs to them.
Hanlon's razor suggests:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
In my history as an outsource developer, maybe every second NDA document I was offered to sign was written for the first time, without involvement of any lawyers. When I saw inconsistencies and asked, "is it really the meaning you are trying to convey?" they always answered I'm free to suggest any constructive modifications.
Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue, and the keyword here is prior inventions. In other words,
any invention except those based on prior inventions listed in Appendix 1 that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed...
What you have to do is simply listing all possible inventions and know-how in all relative areas that you already possess.
If they don't limit business areas - that's a bad sign, but you may suggest adding it to the scope of NDA.
If they disagree to have such a list - refuse the NDA.
update I see this answer has been downvoted, so let me explain a bit further.
You have some knowledge and know-how at the moment, otherwise why are you hired as a professional. Obviously, you already have this know-how, and it can't be considered obtained as part of your engagement.
Also, in the future you are planning to work as well, aren't you? Most likely, you will continue using your existing expertise in your business area and expanding that expertise.
During completing the work (covered by NDA) you will obtain new expertise. And what you do with NDA is that you are promising not to use it for competing purposes.
The only goal of fair NDA is putting a fair border between those two kinds of knowledge.