How many times does this happen to you? You experience a situation, then shortly after the situation you gain some meta awareness and decide it needs a name. This is how a lot of "jargon" must be created.
For me it came after a consultation on a Revit behavior. I thought, "This needs to be called Software Archeology." It's a good metaphor and one I used earlier in an post discussing the Cutoff property.
Well it turns out, like my idea for the Slinky, someone already thought of it! A quick Google search reveals the wikipedia reference.
The definition: includes the reverse engineering of software modules, and the application of a variety of tools and processes for extracting and understanding program structure and recovering design information.
I and other former Reviteers often get questions as to why Revit behaves a certain way. Some common answer patterns are "Because of this early important customer", "Because of this highly influential former leader", "Because the feature hasn't been touched in X releases", "There is no reason that I can recall..sorry".
In this case the behavior had to do with old and specifically coded dimension sketch behavior. If you dimension to references outside the sketch (say walls while in a floor sketch) the dimension will "fall out of the sketch" when you exit the sketch. They will behave as if they were created outside of sketch mode. Why? I suspect that having such dimensions live in the sketch caused issues. If a user moved a constrained wall but the constraint lived in a sketch how would they know? Constraint visibility is a well known issue in the Family Editor. This is my theory anyways. I'm sure code documentation is a popular topic covered elsewhere in the ether.