I’ll take a compromise where “3.1” is etched in each head end, and I can trust that “3.1” means something, and start with that.

The real crux of the issue is that there is no way to identify the ability of a port or cable without trying it, and even if labeled there is/was too much freedom to simply deviate and escape spec.

I grabbed a cable from my box to use with my docking station. Short length, hefty girth, firm head ends, certainly felt like a featured video/data/Dock cable…it did not work. I did work with my numpad/USB-A port bus thing though, so it had some data ability(did not test if it was 2.0 or 3.0). The cable that DID work with my docking station was actually a much thinner, weaker feeling one from a portable monitor I also had. So you can’t even judge by wiring density.

And now we have companies using the port to deviate from spec completely, like the Raspberry Pi 5 technically using USB-C, but at a power level unsupported by spec. Or my video glasses that use USB-C connections all over, with a proprietary design that ensures only their products work together.

Universal appearance, non-universal function, universal confusion.

I hate it. At least with HDMI, RCA, 3.5mm, Micro-USB…I could readily identify what a port and plug was good for, and 99/100 the unknown origin random wires I had in a box worked just fine.