I tried my best to fully address your post.  If you think I didn't, feel free to point out any point you think I didn't address.  I will be happy to do so.  I explained why your analogy is inapt.  Arguing that we should use a term in a specific way in this context by pointing to another context where that term is never used just doesn't make sense at all.  Statues are either restored or reproduced, not remade or remastered.  We use completely different terminology. 

Your argument is that we should call a type of videogame a remake because if a statue was made in the same way, we'd call that a remake.  But we don't call a statute made in that way a remake, so the analogy doesn't work. If I'm misunderstanding you, correct me.

If the work has the same layout or scenarios as the original, but better visuals and minor tweaks to the original gameplay; it's a remaster.

If it has different structure or different kind of gameplay than that of the original, it's a remake.

Those are my two cents. How different must the stuff or gameplay need to be to qualify as a remake, that I don't know. For example, Xenoblade DE introduces a new way to deal with the side quests compared to the original, which in turn results in a different way to approach a significant portion of the game. Is that kind of stuff enough to qualify it as a remake?

My explanation was clear. Reread it. 

There's no arbitrary percentages put into the mix. It's either a remake or a remaster. Not 10% remake so it's a remaster, or 90% redone assets so it's a remake.

It's either rebuilt from scratch: entirely new game code, not just aesthetically or superficially; or it's a remaster: original game code being ported over, improved aesthetics, QoL, and other superficial aspects.

As I understand your analogy is this.  If we make a video game from scratch it would be called  a remake, because if we made a statue from scratch it would be called a remake.  The problem is that if we make a statue from scratch, it's not called a remake.  So, the analogy is not apt.

Is your position that we should use the same term to apply to a game with one new asset as one with 99% redone assets?

It's either rebuilt from scratch or not.  That's agreed.  Why should that be the basis for distinguishing between a remake and a remaster?  You're just repeating your definition.  You're not explaining why this is a better classification system.  I think it makes far more sense to distinguish based on how different the end product is. 

Dunno if it's been said already but...
Plague Inc.

Don't let the Chines government hear that...

So the example of Modern Warfare... Using your description, it would make it a remake, despite the developers calling it a remaster?

Yeah... No.

My explanation is clear. And isn't arbitrary. And it's obvious you're being disingenuous about my analogy. 

I haven't played Modern Warfare or the remake, so I can't answer that.  I don't think the developer calling it a remaster necessarily makes a difference.  The terms may not be mutually exclusive, and Activision may simply have thought that was a better word for marketing.  Again, not having played the games, I can't speak to that example.

If that's not your position feel free to clarify it.  Does it indeed matter how much of the assets are redone?

If I'm missing something in your analogy, feel free to clarify.  I promise you I am doing my best to read your post charitably and interpret you to the best of my abilities.  I'm not going to accuse you of being unclear, but I will say I personally genuinely do not understand why the analogy is valid.  If you care about clarifying yourself do so.  If you just want to call me a liar, then whatever.   

Remade from scratch: Remake

Built upon to embellish: Remaster

Trials of Mana: rebuilt from scratch = Remake

Xenoblade Chronicles ~ Definitive Edition: Built upon to embellish = Remaster

It's really that simple. 

I understand your definition.  We can certainly choose to use that definition.  Or we could define it based on how much the end product differs from the original.  I'm asking why you think your definition is more useful.   Do you have anything better than because I said so?