By default a SID is named after the place it ultimately goes TO not any intermediate point. Some same-name SIDS execute a 180 turn to their ultimate waypoint via a left turn, whilst some turn to the right. Some SIDS of the same name have different stop-altitudes which I myself have fallen foul of. Basically, giving different SIDS the same generic name when they do very different things is a recipe for disaster that could easily be designed out.
Getting a SID and onward route without a runway from KUSA and then blindly inserting it into the FMC is not a process that is foolproof. The SID might infer a certain runway but controllers are very fond of tactically changing runway as you taxy out which may change whole ball-game (and is a nightmare on the 787 with it's FMC/EFB perf process.)
Distractions are very unwelcome.
It is practice at many eastern US airfields to report the first significant RNAV waypoint on the expected departure when acknowledging the take-off clearance. This should bowl out any possibility of turning in an unexpected direction after take-off but the practice seems confined only to certain airfields. Maybe the FAA need to revisit the practice. More importantly, change the practice of naming different SIDS with the same generic name. If you throw enough traps in front of me, sooner or later, no matter how carefully I tread, I am going to fall into one of them.