I asked myself why didn't the early scholars use specific words for specific meanings, instead of using the word نسخ for all those meanings. Then, what words would they have used? For instance:
تعديل /taʕ,di:l/ for adjustment? But that wouldn't be correct, because that word actually means making something upright, as in الجرح والتعديل
تغيير /taɣ,ji:r/ for change? But that wouldn't be correct, because the word actually means making something different from what it was, as in
while نسخ may keep some aspects.
تبديل /tæb,di:l/ for substituting. God did use that word in 16:101, but not in 2:106, so the intended meaning of each must be different.
إضافة /i,ɖa:fæ/ for addition? But that wouldn't be correct because it can always be thought of as a new ruling.
حذف /ħæðf/ for editing out? But that never applied to any verse.
محو /mæħw/ for erasure? God did use that word in 13:39, but not in 2:106, so the intended meaning in each must be different.
إزالة /i,zæ:læ/ for removal? But that wouldn't be accurate because the word actually meaning letting something stay behind but not removed.
استثناء /istiθ,næ:ʔ/ for exemption? The early scholars did use that word often in the context of نسخ
ترخيص /tær,xi:ʂ/ for licensing? The early scholars did use that word often in the context of نسخ
تخصيص /tax,ʂi:ʂ/ for specifying? The early scholars did use that word often in the context of نسخ
تخفيف /tax,fi:f/ for easing? The early scholars did use that word often in the context of نسخ
زيادة /zi,jæ:dæ/ for addition? But it was the opposite, easing, that has happened.
Thus, I conclude, that the early scholars did use the right word نسخ for all of the meanings of that word. It is the latter scholars who confined the word to only one of its meanings, namely, total replacement, that has caused the dilemma of abrogation IMHO.