According to Dr. Husayn Nassaar, from his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 45, Makki ibn Abi-Taalib made several assertions about naskh that demonstrate how the word has been used to conflate many notions that are unrelated.
Firstly, Makki stated that a contingent command is abrogated when its contingency is no longer. He gave as an example,
He said that this was only necessary because of Al-Hudaybiya treaty, but when it expired the practice was not the way the verse calls for.
That of course is not an example of abrogation, because, if we concede to the stated contingency, if another treaty is signed, the practice will have to revert back to what the verse says.
Another misclassification of abrogation that Makki made was his statement, quoted by Dr. Nassaar on page 46, that "implied meaning" of a verse is abrogated by another verse. He cites this verse for evidence,
He said that the verse implied that being drunk outside prayer times was allowed. No, it was tolerated for a while. There was no explicit command about intoxication at first. There was never a verse that said intoxication was fine. Even the verse that says that intoxicants have some benefit also said that the harm is more. This is a case of correcting a misunderstanding, not abrogating it.
A third misclassification Makki made (mentioned on the same page) is that it may happen that an abrogating command is mandated and the abrogated command is also mandated but we can choose between them! As an example, he cites
8:66/8:65. If we can choose, then the command is not abrogated because abrogation is annulment. With abrogation, we can only follow the abrogating command and we must NOT follow the abrogated command.
A fourth characterization Makki made (mentioned on page 49) which I see as inaccurate, is that Makki considers that abrogation and specification share in removal of an earlier ruling. I beg to differ. Specification does not remove an earlier ruling, it modifies it. Unless what Makki meant by يزيل is "to set aside", which is linguistically correct. But even then, the ruling that is set aside is permanently annulled when abrogated and therefore never set back. On the other hand, a ruling that has been set aside then specified is set back.