@jimm101 The context of MOV is only the CPU and only by translating Assembly can anything be ported. The effect is not a string allocation and pointer assignment, and I address that in my answer. By questioning and editing it, I found that perfectly readable code becomes incomprehensible regardless of language knowledge, if a few levels of abstraction are applied above it, or if a few design patterns or code templates are applied in it or become built into it. The effect of "say 'hello'" could be (and mean) anything, by context. I also suggest what makes a language objectively low-level today.

@TinfoilHat, your confusion is indeed due to the quick closing, then re-opening, of this original question. The closure was not due to a previous question or answer here. When this question was closed, I realized I would not get answers to it, so I asked instead for an expression suitable for use in formal writing.

You have used 1) and 2) in both of your examples, so that I can't address them separately. If your answer retains its structure, I think the first example should be flipped to compare to the 1) and 2) of the second, in order to show that spiral is an adjective. If you can edit the answer so, and you can show that it's used in papers so, I will (as per OP) accept the answer. But it's tricky to show; it may appear so purely to be descriptive and at a loss, as I am, and not as a property of something, as circular is. This property is what I'd like to find for my own writing.

Granted that English has its way of sequencing words to make forms/parts of speech dubious, "a spiral structure" etc does not let me express the shape of the structure. The structure is...? The galaxy is...? The last example is better, but the imaging used is magnetic, using magnets, and using a spiral trajectory. So, the trajectory is...?

@Greybeard I will water your beard and up you one edit to remove that phrase. No-one here has to prove me wrong. I'm less important than the question.

As for layers, I could ask you for a definition. I offer instead 2 definitions of high-level in my answer: a 40yo one, and 1 that is relevant now: If we are to express ourselves in a high-level language today, we should not have to change our high-level statements to accommodate changes in underlying components. But this is not the case, with every line of code subject to change, from the desire to include and even create source or compiled-binary dependencies.

let dinner = "sushi"; is not an abstraction for mov ax,bx because the former does not substitute for the other by way of language, because the latter does not do all the things that happens behind the scenes, even if the statement is compiled to a binary. They are not equivalent, but more than that, the abstract suggestion does not result in the concrete opposite, and depending on the language, it might be a pure compiler directive that results in no code and no result at all. A pure Assembler can easily allow string assignments at compile time and so support the let statement.

From your feedback, I have rephrased the question to find precedents in formal writing. Please have a look. english.stackexchange.com/questions/606072/…

Pseudocode is not a programming language, however.

@jimm101 in no language is let dinner = "sushi"; an abstraction for ax=bx. You are as wrong to write this as to write Say "We have sushi for dinner" is an abstraction for it in Logo.

@user it does if logo does not permit low-level accesses, results, or execution. See my answer.