what I want to talk about is the different kinds of changes the different mechanism.
glossing it over as all the same process is not helping that end.
I feel like you are the only one having issue with this.
No one is glossing over it, though it has been pointed out that you seem to make some unnecessary distinctions; sometimes seemingly incorrect distinctions.
There is existing language to specify the type and mechanism of any particular mutation.
Why add the redundant, generic term "change"? Weren't you just arguing that mutation was so generic is was "useless"? Isn't "change" even more generic, and thus more "useless"?
If you are using mutation and change as totally interchangeable terms and other people don't, then using "change" is providing more clarity to the discussion of how many kinds of changes there are, and NOT derailing it into a discussion of the definition of mutation.
Your statement is anything but "clear". It seems self-contradictory nonsensical doublespeak.
Moo-moo dogface to the banana patch?