Newbie question, does reversion mean the same thing as the chess term "transposition"? (i.e. achieving the same board state but through a slightly different move order?) I searched for reversion on SL and on google but to no avail.

Yes, see the beginning of this response by lightvector.

Yes.



Actually, I have at least mentioned it on SL:
https://senseis.xmp.net/?PositionalJudgment



Even dull Google finds the URL above after giving enough search hints:) However, Google is too weak to easily list occurrences on my webpage...

Was it in significant use prior to your own usage in research as well? Unfortunately, I would guess that "transposition" is still probably 10 to 100 times more common, if for no other reason that it is the term in chess and chess players both greatly outnumber Go players among English speakers, as well as computer chess being the game with the biggest early influence on the algorithmic side of computer board game playing, i.e. the major applied field that would care about that kind of theory or concept regarding game trees.

1) For go theory for go players: Yes, reversion was the common term in verbal use and the go literature long before I started using it in my texts. (I have invented many terms, as necessary or good for clarity, but not reversion. It was also long before combinatorial game theory spread its own abuse of the word reversal to expert go players.) I do not recall to have seen the term transposition once.

2) It is quite possible that chess uses other terms. Hey, chess does not even know what is a move or pass!;)

3) Informatics or mathematics research: Terms often differ from go terms for go players, even in texts written by go players. Terms have often changes over time. E.g., army, unit, group etc. were abused with the meaning of string / chain. Some research fields, such as combinatorial game theory, have established their own terminology, such as abusing reversal for a different meaning. This has these reasons: a) different domains (or particular games) have different terminologies so research may well develop its own terminology; b) quite a few researchers are relatively weak go players and have not studied go theory enough to know its typical terminology; c) not everybody has enough personal contacts to other go players and reads much of the go literature so may not know common terms there; d) some teaching in speech or writing is insufficient and forgoes quite a few terms and concepts; e) some terms change (hey, e.g., Koreans try to impose theirs, but also some teachers have a desire or see necessities to develop terminology, e.g., I think it was James Davies who introduced snapback).