therein lies:- just because you ‘won’t ever be flying it’ does not mean you won’t have to make a defensible decision if something goes wrong. I agree it’s very poorly defined right now; as are a few other procedures.
I’ve been given the published miss a number of times in VMC after being cleared for a visual; and now (3/24) ATC are issuing ‘Cleared for Approach’ instead of defining a specific approach ….

I'm not sure how "authoritative" my answer is, but in post 7, I mentions how almost everyone based in the US does it.

I'll start off by agreeing that a published procedure or altitude would be helpful. For whatever reason, they've decided against doing so. I think I can easily defend whatever reasonable decision I make because a visual approach does not have a missed approach segment. The next time ATC gives you the published missed from a visual approach, I'd call the facility on the ground and request clarification and explain that that RT is confusing from a pilot's point of view. At which airport was this clearance issued?

Regarding "cleared for approach" phraseology, section 4-8-1 of the 7110.65 has this to say:
The only times I've been told to fly the published missed would have been at smaller training airports, where controllers know which planes are doing IFR training, and will be given that instruction if requested by the instructor. Otherwise, even in a 172, it's "fly heading 270, maintain 2000ft, contact approach". The only exception to that I can envision is a non-radar environment, and as I alluded to earlier, you're probably not going there in a Boeing or Airbus.