This does make sense; but I would nonetheless suggest to the auto industry that they change the wording somehow. Fifty years ago any such mandatory fix certainly did mean making manual modifications to each individual car, whether in a service shop or by replacing the whole thing. That's no longer the case, and risks significant public misunderstanding.
Here in the UK they have loads of "archaisms":
- pavement: A place for pedestrians to walk on the side of a road; what Americans call a "sidewalk". Named because 200 years ago, the roads were dirt but sidewalks were paved. Now the roads are paved too, but they kept calling it "pavement"
- public school: A very posh private school; e.g., Eton. Named (as I understand it) because your children were taught in public, rather than in the home by a private tutor / governess / whatever.
I am not so sure. Take Linux kernel log levels:
0 = emergency
1 = alert
2 = critical
3 = error
4 = warning
As soon as I saw this I showed it to multiple people, and none of them understand how a log level of "alert" can be more severe than "critical". Now, there is probably some greybeards that decided these words way way back and we decided to stuck with them. But if you tell someone "damn, the kernel is giving off alerts", their thought will be "well, at least the system isn't in a critical state or error out, right?".
Intuition matters.
A recall is a mandatory fix that the manufacturer is obligated to provide at no charge and to proactively notify customers of. It comes with reporting obligations and long term warranty implications.
It might be that industries should not reuse common words, but IMO it’s a little silly to insist that they only use the most literal and etymologically correct terms for each individual action rather than defining categories that have clear meanings even if a specific action doesn’t perfectly match the most literal reading of the name of the category.