I guess I'm just not understanding how the process name, which has been the process name for a long time, is "alarmist". The way you phrased it made me think you have some alternate word to use for the process of recall which is less "alarmist".
In this case the issue is tiny, the fix is tiny. It's not like a recall where a decent number of people will die from exploding gas tanks, which also falls under the word "recall".
Maybe if they added a severity, even a simple 1-5, like computer people use for vulnerabilities, or the military uses for levels of alert, or we use for storms, and so on, this would not happen.
But using the correct word can be alarmist if articles, headlines, or pundits use it to scare beliefs into the middle of the possible range when it's at the low end.
It sounds more alarming than is the case in practice. They is literally no 'recall' - you just pop in - so the word isn't even accurate if you read it literally. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that?
But I think the car industry is an exception in that it makes sense to fix the effected product. Most other products that are recalled (food, or the Galaxy Note 7, or other gadgets, for example), are not quickly fixed. In those industries (most other than automotive) a “recall” means throwing away potentially huge amounts of product.
Edit: To clarify, I’m saying the title could be easily misunderstood. I understand that it is correct.