Yes – determined, executed, completed – or whatever other names might be proposed.
Then, one would have to go through all the existing rules where “determined” comes into play, deciding which should remain “determined” and which should change to “executed”.
For example: Should pressing the clock be legal after determination, or only after execution? (This one’s pretty obvious, at least to me – it should be only after execution.)
Example two: In the case of a checkmating move, can a player escape a time forfeit by determining a move, or only by executing it, before his time expires? (This one, I suppose, is legitimately debatable.)
Example three: When is it proper to offer a draw? Between determination and completion, or between execution and completion? (I vote for the latter.)
Such a fine-tooth combing of all the rules would yield two lists of rules, one list where “determination” is appropriate, and another list where “execution” is.
With any luck, the “determination” list might turn out to be empty. In that case, we could scrap the idea of determination altogether, and just go with execution.
Or, for that matter, once “determination” has disappeared from the rules, we could use that word in place of “execution”. This would require a rewrite of rules 9B (determination of a capture) and 9C (determination of castling). It would also require that future rulemakers keep in mind that “determination” is a specific, defined concept, not to be confused with the generic determination of a move as the point at which no other move is legal anymore.
To sum up: The 4th edition distinction between determination and completion was a welcome advance, but the choice of the word “determine” was questionable, since it invites confusion. The best course might be simply to replace “determined” with “executed” everywhere, and to rewrite 9B and 9C.
Bill Smythe