If HTLC-locked Bitcoin UTXOs are "tokens," then every Bitcoin payment is a "token" - the word becomes meaningless. A token is a claim on an asset (WBTC: "BitGo owes me Bitcoin"). Lightning is enforceable possession - Bitcoin locked in 2-of-2 multisig that either party can close unilaterally to the base layer. No issuer. No IOU. No counterparty risk beyond the channel counterparty (who can't steal, only delay). Calling that a "token" confuses bearer instruments with custodial receipts. Semantic reductionism isn't an argument. Define your terms or concede the distinction.

updating a multisig state isn't a token because you have an enforceable L1 claim to the sats. it isn't without counterparty risk, because your channel partner can close or lie about the channel state. but that is different from a ruggable token for example.