I would agree; the wording can matter. Or maybe it doesn't ... There are times when you're simply not going to get what you want, in terms of afirmation from a lube maker.
"Meets or exceeds" is a common phrase we hear. But this does not mean it's licensed, which is a whole different topic. Meets or exceeds simply claims that whatever the parameters are, the product will do as well or better, but it has not been verified by the OEM. "Meets or exceeds" is a statement of the aftermarket maker, whereas "licensed" (aka "approved") is a statement from the OEM.
"Desgined to meet" could mean it does meet the spec, or that is was targeted to the spec but failed (by how much, we'd never know). There may be something in the spec that is stated at some value (a %, or a temp, etc) and the aftermarket fluid won't quite get there, by a very small margin, but that small "miss" in meeting spec may have no real-world effect in terms of use. Viscosity is a great example. Some spec may state "min vis X.x at 100c", but the aftermarket product is at X.y. We'd all agree that perhaps a tenth or two of vis difference doesn't matter, especially if the aftermarket product does a good (or better) job of holding it's vis over the OEM product spec. An excellent example of this is the old Dexron IIIh and Mercon fluids; they were spec'd at 7.3 cSt. When the Dex VI and Mercon LV came out, those were set at 6.1 and 5.8 cSt. Ironically, the Dex/Merc fluids could not hold that 7.3 vic for long, and were known to plummet to the low 5.x vis after 25k miles or so. Yet the newer fluids were made of much better base stocks to meet the newer specs, and therefore held their vis much better than the older spec. So even though the "new" spec was a lower vis, it survived better in use. Valvoline Maxlife ATF is known for being a nearly-one-size-fits-all fluid for many trannies. They don't concern themselves with the vis spec; it is what it is out of the bottle. They care much more about the add-pack. Hence, the Maxlife ATF cannot "meet" some OEM specs, but Valvoline recommends the lube for many, many applications. They don't go get all those licenses because they fluid would never meet the various different nunaces of the market, but the general product itself can be used safely in a wide variety of applications.
My long winded point is that "designed to meet" does not assure you it's OK, but it should not be automatically interpreted as a failure to meet either.
My recommendation is to email Cenex and get a question/answer on record. Specifically ask them what they recommend for each application you seek to cover. If they say that the Indol EH will work, then that would be enough for me.