Speaking as a semanticist, it's wild to me that they are phrasing it in terms of whether an *act* is characterized as "official", when what they seem to actually be talking about is whether there exists a *description* of the act that can be characterized as "official".
This is very similar to the faux outrage over calling out certain claims as false -- the idea that if there exists *some* interpretation of a claim that is true then it is true, regardless of the interpretative context.
