the fact that you are trying so hard to confuse users that cashu tokens is bitcoin is deeply worrying. This is a very troubling ethos of Cashu.
Discussion
eCash are tokens that can be exchanged for sats. This is clear, there is no confusion.
Notice how you sidestepped the question. This reveals a weak point in your argument: that for a transaction to be labeled as "sats," the transaction itself must consist of sats being exchanged. By this logic, you wouldn't classify any custodial wallet-to-custodial wallet transactions as "sats," implying they shouldn't use the term at all. It's a valid stance to take. If that's your belief, I have no issue with it. Just make sure you are consistent in that view.
No sats are being exchanged in this transaction. Should WOS be using the term sats? 