Having been at a hearing that brings this needed definition forward, it’s hard to believe the call was made just to err on the side of caution.
That the provider was singled out , speaks on the  regulatory process, the cv credentials of board & definition of the therapy.

All the steps and descriptions should be clearly outlined in understandable concise language.

As much as there is a regulatory perspective, there are the individual ethics of provider and the emotions of complainant.
 Is there a survey, score card, or metric checklist needed to define what is a valid violation or a subjective miscommunication.

I look forward to hearing results of this process