Outside of programming, language can connote and suggest. It doesn't need to unambiguously and objectively define, particularly in a way that necessarily aligns

Outside of programming, language can connote and suggest. It doesn't need to unambiguously and objectively define, particularly in a way that necessarily aligns with your specific "interpreter" (yer noggin!). Methinks engineers oftentimes forget this. I feel like yelling, It's English for Chrissake, not some RFC! There's nothing wrong with nitpicking. Details are important. I think you're accurate, just not focused on what's important. Would an editor ask your question? Event within the realm of non-clickbaity titles, I think "Evolution" does pretty well. I think the question to ask is, even if I can make the word more clinically accurate, does it make for a better title? It's sort of like a English major who comes to programming and obsesses over the etymology of words in function names (trying to create a etymologically cohesive network of names) and about the poetic imagery and rhyme of code comments. All valid efforts, in the right domain, but in the programming domain that English major ought to just focus on clean function names and clear concise comments. But hey, that's just my aesthetics. It seems normal and common for me, but maybe there are some people, yourself included, who want blindingly clear accuracy everywhere (suggestion and connotation be damned) because that's what's beautiful and feels right for them. I get that too. So if you're like that or similar, then you can take my comment a valid effort in the wrong domain, too!