If it's useful when people argue about an equivocation, it should be useful when there simply is an equivocation. Here, it would be easier to expose the equivocation of someone tried to spell out what "systematic" means in this context, which is the problem of what the concept of probability means when you try to apply it to the usefulness of an algorithm.

The equivocation in question is between recognizing that an algorithm's effectiveness depends on the concrete particulars of a given problem and recognizing that an algorithm must be reliable to use it to prove knowledge claims. This would have been easier to show equivocal if someone made a serious attempt to unpack "systematically" (or "tends probabilistically") which really does all the work in this account.