If you think it's "incorrect" while I think
it's "correct" that's interesting,

No, no, just "non-standard". "Correct" is a fuzzy term. ;-)

BTW, do you think the coordination exercise label was
initially adopted by someone who'd heard of the aerodynamic
usage, but didn't understand it, or do you think they
developed independently?

Hmmm....interesting question. Seems low probability they'd develop
independently. The originator of the term might well have understood
the stability use of the term, but since the motions bear a
resemblence to each other, might have used it anyway.

Actually, I had never heard of the term in a nautical sense (I'm not a
boater.) Given that boating is older than aviating, seems more likely
that the term was originally use to describe a motion without regard
to its origin. (Or is the boating use a stability issue too?)

But now that it exists as a stability issue in aviation, it seems
prudent to use it only in that sense. I can't tell you how many hours
of confusion it has caused me in the past when the author of an
aerodynamics text used a word carelessly and sent me along dead-end
trails.

Possibly an analogy is the description of the 4 left-turning
tendencies of an airplane. Collectively they're often called
"torque", but only one is caused by the torque of the engine, and is
also called torque. So is calling p-factor "torque" incorrect? Not,
I suppose in the sense that it creates torque around the vertical
axis, and the engine torque creates torque around the longitudinal
axis. But this generated ambiguity in the word "torque" makes it a
bit confusing to talk about the subject.