> At least "steps" are understandable, and the data are roughly correlated.

The point though is that it is very rough, and they may as well have always been called "fitpoints" or "beans" or "gimmicks" for what good it does calling them "steps", especially because of that confusion both inside the industry and out that A) devices have moved from being directly pedometers at the foot to being indirectly pedometers at the waist or now the wrist, and more critically B) that they were always meant to be more of an overall aggregate activity score and the one specific physical action of a "step" never the end goal in measuring the metric anyway (it was just the easiest metric to measure in the early days of pedometers, and being called "steps" as much a historic throwback than an accurate name even in the early days of pedometers).

Whether or not the metric is consistent today, it's at least somewhat in one direction or another inconsistent to call it a "step" and an abstract name would have been more fun and also likely avoid more confusion than the "rough correlation" suggested today.