The user who posted this question is not confused about terminology. They are confused about why a simple task, applying one rule to one column across multiple sheets, requires a workaround at all. And they are right to be frustrated.
The question is straightforward: "I have this rule for column H in one sheet. How do I make it applicable to the same column in all the other sheets?" The answer, in traditional spreadsheets, involves grouping sheets, copying conditional formatting manually, or writing a VBA macro. None of these are intuitive. None of them reflect how people actually think about their data. A user should not need to know the difference between a sheet, a workbook, and a file to apply a formatting rule consistently. That distinction matters to the software, but it should be invisible to the person using it.
This is the kind of friction that has defined spreadsheet tools for decades. Users are asked to adapt to the tool's logic rather than the other way around. The result is a steady drain on productivity and confidence. People internalize the struggle, assuming they just lack technical know-how. But the problem is not with the user. It is with tools that treat every sheet as an isolated island, even when the data and the rules governing it are meant to work together.
An AI-native spreadsheet should not require this kind of manual repetition. If you define a rule for column H in one sheet, the tool should understand that the same column across the workbook likely needs the same treatment, and offer to apply it. Better still, it should let you define rules at the workbook level by default, so consistency is built in from the start. The goal is to reduce decisions, not multiply them.
What this user is really asking for is a tool that thinks ahead. A tool that recognizes patterns in how they work and removes the friction before they have to ask. That is not a luxury. It is a baseline for any modern data environment. The technology exists to make this seamless. The question is whether spreadsheet makers are willing to retire the assumptions that made this question necessary in the first place.