I'm sure somebody must have worked that out, but I'm not convinced the precise and complete definition of any word (in all contexts) can be completely pinned down, unless one freezes the language (or creates an artificial subset of it, with standardised definitions - as per the legal profession). It strikes me as a difficult task, even to create a standardised artificial subset, that is logically complete and free from contradiction (hence the continuing arguments in law over the exact interpretation of contracts and statutes).
I also don't think it is possible for any one person to claim to have a standard understanding of any particular word, which is why I go to lengths (when necessary) to explain exactly what my understanding of a word is, and therefore what I mean when I use it in a particular context. That may or may not accord with your (or any other individual's) understanding, but it is just as valid (presuming it has been given appropriate consideration).