I think that funnily enough, the "semantic diffusion" itself is an example of how such things happen. I wasn't aware of that label and certainly will not be adopting it to my vocabulary. Sounds like a very complex way of saying something has changed its meaning.
Agile existed in a vacuum as a manifesto, then it existed as a driver for cults/zealots of the ideology, then as a de-facto process, and now it's just watered down to something execs repeat when they want to say "our company isn't like a regular stiff corporation, but something more adaptable than that".
The main point is that the real meaning has not changed, and had no reason to change, it just became diffuse because of how often people would twist it or simply parrot words without really knowing what they are. That’s what makes it “painful to watch”.
Agile should still mean exactly the same thing as it did in the manifesto - people over process, short cycles, adaptability.
You just described the same thing as the post, but the author went exploring the inner workings of why it happens.
> Agile should still mean exactly the same thing as it did in the manifesto
I recall Dave Thomas (one of the signers of the manifesto) made the point: He points out "agile" is an adjective, "agile" is not a noun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-BOSpxYJ9M
On one hand, the original meaning of "agile" hasn't changed, as one could consider that immutable - and on the other hand, words do not have inherent meaning, they have usages.
Agile existed in a vacuum as a manifesto, then it existed as a driver for cults/zealots of the ideology, then as a de-facto process, and now it's just watered down to something execs repeat when they want to say "our company isn't like a regular stiff corporation, but something more adaptable than that".