I don't plan to die on this hill, but I think this practice is somewhat forgivable when assuming good intent.

The author may have realized that "MVP" has lost its originally _good_ meaning and became something else. They wanted to publish a post bringing focus back to what MVP originally was supposed to be, but felt that it's meaning has become so tied to its new, less good one, that they needed a new acronym to wrap their message in.

It's all reactionary, and in your own words, you acknowledge nobody would care if they just presented it as "our MVPs are what they _should_ be".

I try to assume good intent; they want to use influence to reign back the practice of building MVPs in a poor UX sort-of-way, and felt a new acronym was the best way to get an audience and tell the story.