eCash are tokens that can be exchanged for sats. This is clear, there is no confusion.
Discussion
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? 
Your initial sentence was "You can not call them tokens and just call them a batch of sats." which now changes to "eCash are tokens that can be exchanged for sats. This is clear, there is no confusion" .
That's a change of definition.
I think perhaps best if you and cashu devs decide how you'll want to position Cashu tokens. I was genuinely curious and would have helped in whichever way I can if I believed in it but I am put off with this highly defensive and triggered attitude. There are going to be a lot of people who are not going to like tokens. Trying to badger the crap out of them will not benefit your cause. Trying to understand what worries them and engage positively in those areas would be better.
I really do not have the time to entertain all of this. cheers mate
My original point was that one can refer to them as 'sats' or as 'ecash tokens'. I don't really care what they are called. You contested this by stating that they shouldn't be referred to as 'sats' because, "When you buy and sell 200 times using Cashu, a Sats transaction doesn't occur 200 times, but only once. As the frequency increases, Cashu transactions become 100 times more frequent than Sats/Bitcoin transactions." By this logic, WOS-to-WOS transactions shouldn't be labeled as 'sats' either. I highlighted this inconsistency in your argument, but you've avoided addressing it.