I'm not arguing with the actual way it's done. I think that is great! I am a massive fan of the call and the in-battle communication.
The fact that it's called a Strike is obviously to make it fit with the patch done to clarify the distinction between Blows and Strikes, but calling a spell attack a Strike just doesn't fit for me.
Sure, I can see where you're coming from.
My general feeling is that we already have a word in the game vocabulary that meant "This thing just has to touch you" and we already used it with multiple carriers (Weapon & Spell (delivered via a weapon)) we just did it in an inconsistent way.
There always a good amount of pushback, and I'm not questioning the validity of the pushback, any time we "adopt" new words into the rules. In this instance, we decided that from a consistency standpoint and a "make use of the tools we had" standpoint, the best answer was the one in the packet.
And while the 2.0 meaning of Strike was something along the lines of "Please pretend that, for targeting purposes, this attack that was delivered via a weapon was actually delivered via a non-blue packet" now it means, more or less, "If this attack touches you, you need to do something about it," whether that's take damage, take an effect, or whatever.
Is there stuff that's going to be problematic because we are using a word we've used before? Probably.
Would there be problems if we used a new word instead? "Almost definitely," say all the people who still call magic armor and their shield magic, even if its just occasionally.
I hope that speaks a little bit to mine and ARC's thoughts on your concern and helps alleviate it, at least in regards to this.