To which I respond that the numbering scheme is misleading at best, a potential liability at worst: I could easily imagine someone suing AMD for false and misleading advertisement by slapping next-gen numbers on old-gen tech sharing the same platform.
APUs are one generation behind on tech and model numbering should reflect that.
I kind of agree with Gillerer that none of this really matters all that much. In the end, the new generation of CPU architecture typically doesn't do a whole lot different from the previous generation as far as the end-user experience is concerned. Maybe the newer architecture is a little faster, but having processors that perform differently within a generation is pretty much expected.
People could similarly hear about how one of the unlocked Intel processors performs at gaming or some other task, then be disappointed to find that the locked part they bought performs 10% slower. In that case, Intel is artificially restricting performance by locking clocks to a lower level than the processor is actually capable of, while in the case of these AMD APUs, performance is limited by not using their newest architecture.
Each generation of processors covers a range of performance levels, and there's a variety of ways for the manufacturer to segregate that range, whether its by locking clock rates and binning chips, disabling cores or SMT, turning off integrated graphics, or using a different architecture. The numbering scheme is pretty much just there to say "This is the new processor lineup for the latter half of 2020".
It might be a little more ideal for these APUs to be using the newest design, though this also frees up manufacturing capacity on the newest process node for other parts, while still letting people know that these are the latest APUs from AMD, and newer models won't likely be coming for another year or so.