I think the suggestion is that we should use the word "complete" when we mean it. Presumably, unlike say a software project, there is an actual state of completion possible in sequencing the human genome. Why has that mark been supposedly met so many times over the past couple of decades, only to be called complete again a few years later? When is it actually complete? Does it even matter anymore?
What human endeavor could ever be considered complete? What you propose is not a useful definition of the word.
If somebody completes a version of software, are they not allowed to announce future versions? Is scientific understanding not allowed to advance and change? Such views of science, as fixed and unchanging, with rigid definitions of inherently fuzzy concepts, are inherently anti-science.
