What is interesting is that your initial response to me was a criticism of my post, written in response to another that laws are universal and can't be wrong, and stating instead that the laws are not absolute nor universal. However, it is not at all true that scientists or philosophers of science today all agree that the term "law" should be understood in the way you describe. I don't deny that many do, but it is important to realize that there remain those laws which are still held to be universal (e.g., the conservation of information, itself a kind of energy conservation law), there remain those scientists and philosophers who believe that "law" should refer only to such laws, and that in general most of the "laws" of nature/physics known today are products of historical failings in physics:
“Problems with the term ‘law of nature’ arose and still arise from the fact that the physicists of the nineteenth century overloaded this term with attributes that in the aftermath were all found to be correct or misleading…
…the physicists of the nineteenth century assumed that their laws of nature were effective and valid at any time and everywhere in the universe.”
Kricheldorf, H. R. (2016). Getting it Right in Science and Medicine: Can science Progress through Errors? Fallacies and Facts. Springer.
At the end of the day, I think we are mostly in agreement about the nature of laws of physics/nature, but disagree somewhat concerning whether to reinterpret the use of the term "law" in terms not only of domain of applicability but also validity (i.e., Coulomb's law or Boyle's law are expressly limited in terms of domain, while Newton's law of gravitation should describe the attraction that Coulomb's law does but fails to be valid at such small scales), or to retain the at the very least the notion that a law be valid universally in its domain. I don't consider Newton's law of gravitation to be anything other than a useful tool that is an incorrect description of nature.
EDIT: Found the book I mentioned in my original draft of this post:
"The waters of the present discussion are sometimes muddied by the variety of terms used to describe the same thing. We speak, for example, of the gas laws, Planck's quantum hypothesis, the Pauli principle and the postulates of quantum mechanics. Each term highlighted in italics has essentially the same meaning..." (italics in original, emphasis added)
Grinter, R. (2005). The Quantum in Chemistry: An experimentalist's View. Wiley.
I just thought this a good example of how scientists tend to view the plethora of terms that were bequeathed to us by a 19th century worldview and have largely lost any real distinctions or hierarchical structure.
