I realize that you have a real thing for arguing, but you understand that you're arguing the official title of the components of the procedure, so designated per convention, appropriately according to the facility, by the people who designed the procedure. I really do believe that you'd argue that black is white just to make an argument.
One wonders how it was possible the Titanic ever sank?
I think there is no provision for back-course approaches in the UK, and I have no experience whatsoever in these types of approaches even flying around Europe in the capacity I do, but the give away for me is the "NB" on the chart.
Surely an explicit acknowledgement by Jepperson that the chance of ambiguity exists?
Even then I still find the note ambiguous. Is it normal sensing when you've dialled up "300" or normal sensing when you've dialled up "120"?
Is that claim to "normality" contingent on the fact you've called it a "back-course"?
What does "normal" mean if this is a "non-normal" approach for you? I haven't flown a back-course approach in at least the last 4000...
And if the sensing depends on what instrumet you're using, the note isn't very helpful anyway....
The semantics is hugely important.