I'm afraid you've misunderstood my meaning there....terminology, in and of itself, isn't confusing. When you have a common phrase, with a textbook definition that can be looked up, that's the exact opposite of confusing.
What is confusing is when people change the terms to mean what they think it should, regardless of the fact that it then doesn't match up with any documented definitions.
(especially when one of the referenced definitions of the steel comes direct from the company where it originated)
As I said, the numbers I saw were .55 to .6 and up to be High. The .3 mentioned was considered Low. Then there was a middle ground in between.
Minor fluctuation in the numbers between different sources, though I don't recall seeing a single one go as high as .8 in the Low Carbon definition.
Again, regardless of what other extreme examples exist nowadays, the definition still has to match what's available in the research material. Maybe it's true that the books need to be rewritten, but as of now it doesn't seem that they have been.
I get that for the most part these details may not matter. I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't have a clue if the entire makeup of the steel was different than what i was told it was. And to me, I'd agree, if it works it works.
But that doesn't mean it's cool to give opinion based descriptions on tangible, measurable things.
Keeping it fun;
Let's say you sold me a 'chocolate cake'.
I take that cake home and cut into it to find a white cake under the chocolate frosting.
I come back to complain and you tell me "10 years ago maybe 'chocolate cake' meant the cake batter itself had the chocolate in it, but nowadays the cool new cakes are all about keeping the batter plain and super-infusing the icing with extra flavor. People just need to catch up to the times with how they think about cake, one day this will become the norm. Put the whole thing in your mouth and you'll still taste chocolate."
You may believe that to be true....but would the average person today say you sold me a chocolate cake?
Or, maybe this is more apt (but I find the previous one to be a funnier idea, so leaving that in)
Let's say you sell something advertised as a 'low sugar chocolate cake' . A customer comes in and buys it based on that description because their personal preference is to limit their sugar intake. No reason, no dietary or health concerns, it's just what they want and is the reason they chose your cake over the one from the bakery next door.
In reality, your cake has at least as much sugar as 80% of the chocolate cakes in the world.
MORE sugar than the one they passed on from next door. In fact, more sugar then what's found in 30% of the chocolate cakes worldwide.
BUT, it has less sugar than the super decedant '7 layer dia-choco-betes molten lava cake' that is currently sold in select bakeries and restaurants. Less sugar than your great grandma's triple fudge chocolate cake. And less sugar than that one god awful cake from that one national restaurant chain, the one that's their best seller and tips the scales at 2,300 calories per slice.
Do those 3 examples make your 'low sugar chocolate cake' description accurate, and all other comparisons should be ignored?