The first one is just poorly stated but is correct in spirit. Use the most inclusive and flexible name allowed by the business logic without being overly generic. Some would say thats the natural term, I guess. The first example of using "employee" as a term invokes murphy's law that the company will hire their first contractor or intern the first week the software ships, resulting in much confusion, wait you've got a column for employees wheres the column for contractors? The second example guarantees that someone in production will confuse the individual serving ice cream cup production table with your HR list of employees if you use the overly generic word "individual". Or maybe those individuals are sales prospects, not employees.

The second one is simply wrong because it burns brain cells when you come back to debug or extend something a year later and nobody memorizes the prikey of table production_quality_results, is it the serial number of the mfgrd object or the timestamp of the QAQC inspection or the serial number of the inspection activity or ... and when you look at column names in table 131 is drivers_license_id a foreign key to a row in the drivers_license table or just a raw store of data, like this is just where you store it in the system? This is especially hilarious if your FK and data source are similar bigint type, like a bigint to connect a FK to a prikey or is your component serial number literally a bigint itself, assuming the prikey is the data itself without dereferencing it will be a hilarious bug, "it seems serial number 10 doesn't exist in our assembly line" "Whoops thats actually row 10 of the production table, serial number whatevs".