Variations on “a [technical term] is said to be [adjective]” suited to scientific publications

Question

(I'll use “spooky-graphoid” as a randomly made-up technical term and “saturated” as a random adjective from the scientific vernacular.)

First, when it comes to the definition of a “saturated spooky-graphoid”, which of the following phrasings are grammatically acceptable?

• A spooky-graphoid is said saturated when/if…
• A spooky-graphoid is said a saturated spooky-graphoid when/if…
• A spooky-graphoid is said to be saturated when/if…
• A spooky-graphoid is said to be a saturated spooky-graphoid when/if…
• (something I didn't think of, or something that involves a rephrasing. E.g.: A saturated spooky-graphoid is a spooky-graphoid such that [rephrased part].)

Then, which is the most advisable, considering criteria such as grammaticality, reading ease, and space occupation (which, for scientific publications, possibly does matter)?

Answer 1

is said to be is the correct construct so the last two are correct, the first two not

I prefer the 3rd example

A spooky-graphoid is said to be saturated when/if…

UPDATE

I do not believe you can replace is said to be with called for these reasons:

Using called implies in my opinion that one can replace the spooky-graphoid with saturated, whereas is said to be will ADD the state or property of saturated to the spooky-graphoid, making it a saturated spooky-graphoid.

For example

A parallelogram is called a lozenge when all four sides have the same length

vs

A parallelogram is said to be a lozenge-shaped parallelogram when all four sides have the same length

Substitute my second example with something that does NOT change its name when it is said to be something

Answer 2

You can also use "called" for "said to be" in this context, i.e.

A spooky-graphoid is called saturated if...

I have seen "said" here (with no "to be") in published technical writing but it doesn't sound like English (and may have been written by non-native speakers).