imho PLL skips do exist. wether intentionally forced or not does not matter. to me a PLL skip is defined by not having to perform a PLL algorithm. to wonder wether it was a CLL done accidentally or purposefully to force a EPLL or if you did a full on zbll case what does it matter? same as OLL skip... if you did a partial edge or winter variation and the OLL step was skipped, its a skip.. . even if you forced the skip, its still a skip. even people who have much knowledge of forcing skips typicallly only use that information in a solve for speed optimal cases that have simple recognition. i know a couple OCLL cases but i wont even use but 1 or 2 of them because of recognition. i'd rather just take a hit on a G perm than to stall an extra second on a OLL to get a U perm. .
OLL arguments aside, I would consider it a PLL skip if you intended to end up with PLL. If you did, say, COLL, and got a PLL skip, I would call that an EPLL skip instead.
A PLL skip just means that you intended to do PLL, but didn't have to.
I wouldn't say that someone "accidently" did a CLL/COLL/ZBLL unless they somehow messed up their normal alg and then somehow did an alg they didn't know that solved more than the normal one would have. This has probably not happened very often, though.
I am, indeed. Pedantry, as your link mentions, is "excessive." That is not compatible with "justified." Excessive, in this instance, obviously means beyond what is justified. Pedantry is never "justified". If your remarks are justified, they're not pedantic.