The discussion on baking vocabulary has gotten me to thinking...
It has also gotten me to combing through my vast collection of old bread recipes and I've found some interesting things.
For example, in the Ingredients section there is a confident statement that active dry yeast must be "proofed" in water before using it in a bread formula.
Well, we did that in 1950 and even in 1970, yet, I find that at least by 1981 no less of an authority than the Fleishman's Yeast company has us dispense with that step for active dry yeast (there was no other kind of dry yeast back then, Rapid Rise was not fully developed until 1984) and mix it directly into the flour.
I've already gone down the rabbit hole with the term "proof" so I will take my medication and calm down about that.
Not bringing this up to be a know it all, but I know that you are trying to be an accurate source for serious or beginning home bakers and what has happened is that there is now one more source on the "inter web" that tells us baking folklore that really isn't true.
The definition of autolyse follows the same vein. It is good for what it is, but it is not defintive as it does not deal with the very real question of adding or not adding pre-ferments.
My advanced age and long years of home baking perhaps give me a different perspective.
Is there some kind of peer review process to which handbook entries will be subject? Is this the means?
I'm glad to put some of my time and effort into doing this. Perhaps you could have definitions and explanations but have sidebars containing "controversy and additional discussion." Just a random thought.
Let me know how I can be of help.