>>Many of us, rightly or wrongly, consider a SEEK
>>command to be intrinsically scoped to "a single record".
>
>My vote would be for wrongly. The scope of SEEK is the entire table: there's no way to tell it to only SEEK in the NEXT 1 record, or REST of table, etc.

Yes, others have commented similarly in the past.
But that is not the issue. The issue is that some people reading the extant note assume that it applies to SEEK too because they see SEEK as scoping to a single record.
It is also true that SEEK without an argument is not syntactically correct, so how one attributes it "scope" to the whole table is questionable too.

While the problem seems obvious - SEEK has no "scope" clause as defined within VFP's regular documentation - it is easy to read the note as meaning 'scope' in the literal English sense and so to attribute "scope of a single record" to be applicabe to SEEK too.

It seems to me that the purpose of documentation is to eliminate/reduce misconceptions by fully describing things. As presently written "scope of a single record" is very easily construed as the English 'scope' and not the VFP-intended 'scope'.