I like the term "exercised" for coverage of questionable assertative value. It's rather pointless in environments with a strict compiler and even some linters get there, but there are still others where you barely know more than that the brackets are balanced before trying to execute. That form of coverage is depressingly valuable there. Makes me wonder if there is a school of testing that deliberately tries to restrict meaningful assertions to higher level tests, so that their "exercise" part is cheaper to maintain?

About the terms thing:

Semantics drifting away over time from whatever a sequence of letters were originally used for isn't an exception, it's standard practice in human communication. The winning strategy is adjusting expectations while receiving and being aware of possible ambiguities while sending, not sweeping together a proud little hill of pedantry to die on.

The good news is that neither the article nor your little jab at the term "tested" really do that, the pedantry is really just a front to make the text a more interesting read. But it also invites the kind of sallow attack that is made very visible by discussions on the internet, but will also play out in the heads of readers elsewhere.