Yeah, there are several ways to push this depending how far TR wants to reset thing. Short of the total revamp you are proposing, updated names are still useful in the current term because many are less than accurate or helpful in the present state.
If we push to a more “ideal” solution, we’ve touched on in various threads before. I offered an alternate approach in the Volume thread linked above that is parallel in some ways to what you suggest:
Adding in options like preferred “Base” approach and/or training methodology (Pyramidal, Polarized, Threshold, etc.) could also be useful, especially if you also offer it with respect to potential training phases.
But with programming like this, the more options you have, the more complex it gets. And considering how different this is from the current state, it would likely take some effort and time to rebuild in this or any other dynamic approach. I love a more tunable and unique approach like this could be, but also don’t expect it to be an easy or quick task.