Predecessor & successor should not be named so
In certain contexts predecessor and successor imply that one thing replaces another. This makes the meaning of one work item preceding another ambiguous.
Say Work Item A is a predecessor of Work Item B. Does it mean that A is no longer valid and only B should be considered a "new version"/successor version of A? Or that A needs to be done before B?
The answer is the latter, but this is especially confusing since "produces for" and "consumed by" are valid options for remote work and are displayed in the same context. These terms are less ambiguous: one work item's value is used / required for another work item. For this reason, one would think the terms predecessor and successor were specifically used to disambiguate the two ways of understanding it from one another.
And anyway, why the f*ck are we naming things differently than GitHub, GitLab, Jira, Linear... EVERY OTHER WELL ESTABLISHED SERVICE. Doesn't "blocks .../blocked by ..." suffice?