For example[1]:
> We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure.
"Presymptomatic transmission" is asymptomatic transmission. Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.
> Whether the infection itself becomes symptomatic later (which, as you've referenced, the research strongly suggests will happen) is of no relevance to the discussion.
What's actually irrelevant is talking about asymptomatic infections - defined as those which do not become symptomatic - as if they do become symptomatic. Again, I'm yet to find a paper that does this. Whether or not an infection is more likely to become symptomatic or not is not relevant here, nor did I make reference to any such likelihood, because it's not relevant.
I can't tell if you're quibbling because you don't want to accept a minor correction or because you haven't bothered to read any of the literature.