Pedantic or not, the distinction matters because it highlights where GGG's focus and balance philosophy actually lie. You're acting like saying "strike skills outperform slams" erases years of GGG blatantly propping up slam builds with patch after patch of direct buffs and mechanics built specifically for them.
Strike skills "outperform" because half of them aren't even melee anymore. Lightning Strike and Frost Blades are ranged hybrids that happen to swing a sword at the start of the animation. Smite's been an aura bot meme for years. None of those represent actual melee combat.
Meanwhile, slams have been GGG's golden child for literal years. Overexertion, Fist of War, shockwave scaling, AoE overlap fixes, seismic interaction buffs… the list goes on. Every single melee rework since 3.11 has revolved around making slams feel powerful.
Slams consistently get dedicated mechanics and deliberate design passes that make them feel impactful and modern. Strike skills, on the other hand, have been carried by bandaids like ancestral call, strike range, and weird projectile gimmicks that make them barely "melee" anymore.
So yeah, if your definition of "outperforming" means pretending ranged-hybrids count as melee while GGG keeps hard-buffing slams, sure. Otherwise, it's pretty obvious which archetype they actually care about.