An unfinished product is still a product. If I sell you a PC in parts, it's still a PC, you just have to assemble it.

Then you have a different definition of product from myself, and that's probably a source of confusion :-)

For me being finished is part of what a product is. If not how far back can we go? Where is the dividing line between raw material and "unfinished product"?

The design is sometimes not even concerned with turning the unfinished product into the finished product, as that's sometimes a well-defined production process.

But surely the design of the product must specify its final state, even if it doesn't specify the exact process used to reach that state? In which case (with my definition of product) I would say that the source code would meet your definition of design.

I think the basic terms proposed are somewhat flawed

Amen to that.

Personally I have a loathing for comparisons between software development and engineering / architecture / crafts / whatever. They're almost always based on misconceptions of how the various professions operate.

I believe very few people think of programming, bricklaying, carpentry or masonry as "crafts".

And I believe that many people do consider them crafts - but that may be influenced by the fact that my father still sits in the chair that my great-grandfather made ;-)