Dysfunctional Rules IV- It's like a sandwich made of RAW failure!

[bekeleven]

I'm collating data that was not, originally, my own. You see, I just started reading Captnq's Weapon Handbook and noticed some amusing messages in the introductory rant:

And screw WotC for such poorly defined terms as well. Do you know that TECHNICALLY, if a Monk misses on ANY roll to hit while performing a flurry of blows it stops being a flurry of blows? I don't even know what that MEANS! Damn WotC and their strangely worded definitions for Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Strikes.

I was confused until I read gauntlets.pdf:

Unarmed Attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.
Unarmed Strike: A successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking
without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal non-
lethal damage.

And now we look back at Flurry of Blows:

When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).

I'm now currently trying to track down the definition of unarmed strike as "an unarmed attack that hits". As far as I can tell, it's used mostly interchangeably with unarmed attacks (like here), with the exception that unarmed attacks are never referred to as dealing damage - "strike" was always paired any time dice were mentioned. However, saying that a greatsword deals 2D6 damage doesn't mean a greatsword always hits, so I don't think it's significant.

Thoughts?