I am personally not comfortable with using 'information'. I think Bohm's formulation "phenomena" is more appropriate. Note that, for example, the manifestation of wave/particle duality is an actual physical phenomena. The 'information' bit is our observation of this phenomena.

And in case the question is still on the table as to are these distinctions merely a matter of philosophical taste or aesthetics?, from same source cited:

Alain Aspect

   At the time of Einstein and Bohr it was just a theoretical
   discussion. You could endorse either Einstein's position or
   Bohr's position, and it was just a matter of taste. 

   And then there was the great discovery by John Bell in '65 that
   it is not only a matter of taste, because according to the 
   position you have at the subatomic point, you have predictions 
   which are not the same. 

   If you follow Einstein you have a certain type of predictions 
   -- that is to say you have results that are in agreement with
   what is called the Bell's inequalities -- and if you follow
   Bohr's position you have another type of prediction which are
   in contradiction, in opposition, with Bell's inequalities. 

But yes, I think phenomena are the atomic building blocks of science. The logical positivists at least got that right.

Lacking context, this could seem somewhat opaque.

Would you mind clarifying which definition of "phenomenon" you are intending to convey? (eg Kantian or otherwise)