I wish you the best of luck in fighting one buzzword with your new one. If it gains traction I'm sure it won't be used by the champions of your buzzword to sneak in their own desires instead of rigid adhereance to your definition.

I recently stumbled across a blog post from 2006 explaining all the problems commonly heard today about capital-A agile. That means we've spent at least 18 years faffing about letting conmen steamroll us that it can't be a con because there's a nugget of a good idea burred somewhere in there. Good ideas don't need branding. Branding is never a good idea.

The con men [edit: pluralize] aren't selling their product to software engineers. They're selling to management. So they twisted agile into some kind of feel-good micromanagement called Agile (with the cap A), which is what appeals to management.

How would anyone ever expect a framework that diffuses control from managers to sell well . . . to managers?