I've not had the time to read over the finer details of this thread and I'm not as experienced on these topics as others in this thread, but I just thought of a small contribution which may provoke some further thought.

For me, some of these terms (or at least certain usages of these terms) can only be defined as a comparative. That is, they only make sense when used in context with another puzzle. As an analogy, you cannot say that a certain puzzle is harder, but you can say it is harder than a 2x2x2. Likewise, I don't understand a puzzle in isolation being considered fudged, but it could be a fudged version of another, specified, puzzle. This may be an overly simplistic viewpoint, and someone may find a suitable definition to correct me.

Taking a second look at it, my definition for fudging is absolutely useless. It would be better to define the orbit of a point as all the points to which it can be transformed by moves, and then take the union of all finite orbits, and "restrict" the puzzle to that.