Nothing about the definition implies the existence of the former construction.

HN discourages this type of bad faith misinterpretation in the name of pedantry.

That is itself a misinterpretation, but I'll assume good faith.

I'm not misinterpreting; I'm saying the definition is too broad. A useful reply seems simple enough:

- yes it is too broad, and here's the additional criterion to narrow it correctly

- no it is not too broad, and here's why a flat tyre is a recall

It wasn't a definition. The person you replied to used "means" in the sense of "necessarily implies", not in the sense of "is precisely equivalent to". That's what the symbols in my earlier comment meant.

E.g.

> "Murder" is a legal term, it means the act was premeditated.

Somebody who says that is not claiming that all premeditated acts are murder.