The article’s opening sentence states that it is introducing a new term. So the author gets to define it how they like, and nobody can reasonably complain that this sense of the word isn’t already in the dictionary. Of course it isn’t. It’s an intentional neologism.
The analogy to the term from physics, which is a noun that describes a state, seems clear enough to me. I can’t speak to how apt that analogy may be, but software industry jargon mostly consists of appropriating other fields’ jargon based on inapt analogies, so I’m not sure if it matters.
The everyday meaning of incoherent is more like “meaningless.” For that reason alone I would say it’s a worse word for the concept the author describes.
The analogy to the term from physics, which is a noun that describes a state, seems clear enough to me. I can’t speak to how apt that analogy may be, but software industry jargon mostly consists of appropriating other fields’ jargon based on inapt analogies, so I’m not sure if it matters.
The everyday meaning of incoherent is more like “meaningless.” For that reason alone I would say it’s a worse word for the concept the author describes.