Also goes for Abhidhamma as a scholasticism of Buddha's original, non-propositional thought into propositional, ontological form (Ronkin, Early Buddhist Metaphysics), and Nagarjuna who sees this as misappropriation.

Perhaps scholasticism broadly as a contrived systemization of the unsystematic?

I've been wondering what to use instead of 'texts' for the content of the sruti; the content as it was revealed, put into language, transmitted orally, and only later put into 'text'.

If linguistic categories in a way encode for ontological or epistemological conventions, then as per Nagarjuna, they're all cohesive. Cohesively empty.