I don’t disagree. I think the misunderstanding here is that WK’s radicals really do include a large majority of the traditional radicals. They leave some out and they change some names, but they have been good enough for me that I haven’t had any issues searching unknown Kanji in Jisho using 部首 entry.
The logical conclusion for me is that the differences are tailored to WK’s own system, just as other classification systems will tailor them for things like dictionary lookups.
So I think the internal consistency from WKs point of view makes it just as valid as any other system.
I’d actually argue that the general understanding is that the conflation between “radical” and “component” is so widespread that the distinction becomes a matter of pedantry.
I mean, I still call them radicals because it’s easier to communicate what I’m taking about that way, even when both I and the person I’m talking to know what they really are.
Where I draw the line at is Kanji as radicals. But I just add a synonym and move on. 