Interesting idea! How would you differentiate between the two? I guess with a reset, you stop everything, turn it all off, and turn it back on. Is that what you mean?
I think the implication is that our financial indicators have outrun the actual state of the economy. We're resetting in the sense that we're forcing the indicators to match reality again.
To recover would mean the numbers would go back to where they were before, which isn't going to happen.
What constitutes productive work is disputed, of course. Most people agree growing food and teaching kids is productive work. Most people agree selling narcotics or a crime ring is not productive. A lot of work (advertising, the financial sector, many types of legal work, some types of management, drilling for oil, prostitution, etc.) are areas where reasonable people disagree.
There is a lot of stuff to definition of equitable too: Who plays the capitalist game best? Who produces the most value? Based on need? Who works the hardest?
Capitalism and money is an accounting scheme to make that happen. It's far from optimal, but it's the best algorithm we've got.
A reset could mean:
(1) We forget all debt. We give everyone the means of production they're currently using. We start all bank accounts back at a common value. We resume from there.
(2) We put a new system in place to replace capitalism, and we pray it works better.
(3) We unwind debts and bank accounts to where they were in January 2020. We start from there. It's just bits on computers.
(4) Etc.
I don't think the recovery model ever had legs. The suspend/restart model could have worked in March, perfectly cleanly, but we're past that point now. We've gone to where we'll either have major problems for a few years, or some kind of major out-of-the-box solution like a reset.