That seems like the wrong solution, because IMHO you haven’t identified the actual problem in your post.
TR’s FTP does aim to approximate the lactate threshold, because the purpose of this value is to set your training zones — using Coggan’s model.
The actual problem as I see it is that people use TR’s FTP as the main metric for fitness. Rather than renaming things, adding to confusion, I’d invest in creating and surfacing better performance metric and make those explicit to users. These should depend on the plan and your goals. E. g. if an athlete chooses a crit plan, then absolute short term power and repeatability are metrics. How often can you go above threshold and recover?
This would also help you tailor plans to the needs of the user. E. g. I have added a polarized block to my training after my drop in endurance, because my problem in May when I restarted training was not power, but endurance. And in my experience, a polarized block improves my endurance but doesn’t raise my FTP much.
I realize this is a HARD problem, but renaming FTP to tFTP does nothing to address it and just causes further confusion once someone digs deeper. (What is the difference between FTP and tFTP? But if tFTP isn’t the same as “Coggan’s FTP”, why does TR use Coggan’s zone model with tFTP = FTP? What is FTP really?)
Bingo.
TR and its athletes need better metrics. Too many of us are chasing power. Even though I am aware that FTP is not the only performance dimension that matters, it is really hard to quantify progress in the other dimensions. E. g. last year I did a power PR (117 % FTP for almost 7 minutes and an average heart rate of 159 bpm — and I had energy to spare). But how do I quantify that? Should I repeat the climb to assess certain aspects of my power?