> I mean if your argument is that a mallard (test) and a muscovy (docs) are both types of ducks

To draw a more reasonable analogy with how the words are actually used on a normal basis, you'd have fowl (docs), ducks (specs), and mallards (tests). As before, the terms change in specificity, but do not refer to something else entirely. Pointing at a mallard and calling it a duck, or fowl, doesn't alter what it is. It is all the very same animal.

Yes, fowl could also refer to chickens just as documentation could refer to tax returns. 'Tis the nature of using a word lacking specificity. But from context one should be able to understand that we're not talking about tax returns here.

But I don't have an "argument". High school debate team is over there.

> It's simply a recognition that you can't write a perfect spec.

That was recognized from the onset. What is the purpose of adding this again?

> Do you think we're all wrong?

We're all bad at communicating, if that's what you are straining to ask. Which isn't exactly much of a revelation. We've both already indicated as such, as have many commenters that came before us.