Micro, the discussions in your thread have been most valuable, if only to identify the complexities that the industry tends to introduce to apparently simple aspects of safety.
Operations pre GPWS, allocated significant attention to avoiding the threat of CFIT, but there were few ‘detector’ systems and no drills.
With GPWS there was a simple drill:- IF “Whoop Whoop Pull Up”, THEN pull up. This was a memory item which added to an increasing number of operating memory drills.
EGPWS introduced more alerting levels and a range of warning prefixes. Whilst it could be argued that the prefixes helped to understand the situation, the drill should always be the same, and should not be delayed by re-evaluation or context dependant modifiers, but perhaps the drill is not always published in a simple manner.
The prefixes might help understand the situation after the event, but this analysis should only be conducted when a safe operating situation has been assured – and checked.
EGPWS is by far the most significant contributor to flight safety in recent years; it evolved from a simple concept, requiring additional features to counter the ingenuity of human error – particularly thinking that the situation is understood.
The industry should take care in not to overcomplicate operational use, nor use systems in ways other than designed, but unfortunately emerging pressures from reduced training / experience and a litigious social environment require more checklists and published explanation, which unfortunately often become the rule, whereas the intent was to provide guidance because not every situation can be foreseen, particularly when it involves the human.