Based on a four decade career where everything depended on differentiating and classifying all sorts of things ranging from individual shapes to how a craft was organized and its working methods (archaeological ceramics), I don't think that meaningful comprehensive definitions -- ones that a meaningful number of people agree on -- are feasible. There wasn't even real agreement about the definition of 'pot' vs 'jar' between me and a colleague I worked with for 20 years. I was the pottery specialist for the project she directed. Many discussions, no final definition. When I published material I defined my terms, for clarity.
Take just the word 'traditional'. What is a "tradition"? Whose tradition? Do you base the definition on working methods or end products? I use thoroughly traditional tools to do multiaxis work. My emerging bowl in the July challenge was done entirely with just a bowl gouge and a detail gouge, on two axes. But if I use just a detail gouge and turn on half a dozen axes -- while maintaining multiple axes of symmetry -- to do ALL of the shaping ON THE LATHE? No further modification of shape or surfaces. Traditional tool. Non-traditional(?) product. So what is it?
Ornamental turning has centuries of history -- clearly a tradition. It could be said to be a "traditional" form of turning. Does "handheld" rule out hollowing systems? Most are hand-guided, but handheld?
The devil is in the details. We use the same words but with idiosyncratic twists. An interesting discussion but I don't see a solution. Define your terms so others know what you intend, but don't expect others to agree.
I'll let Humpty Dumpty and Alice have their say
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”