I don't care if it's "neutral shaper" or "ex-shaper" or "disloyal shaper" or whatever but you guys each object to a different one. We need something that can be used to communicate effectively in this world.
But yes, we should use terminology that is based on what something actually is (stated as flatly as possible) rather than what one or more parties subjectively want to classify it as. The Shaper Council would call Sharon disloyal, maybe, but that's their definition of loyalty, and not even a universal cultural judgment among Shapers, let alone anyone else. And whether or not they were okay with the term "neutral," the Shaper Council would not object to drawing a distinction between an actual rebel shaper fighting against them, and an old shaper who basically retires to the countryside as a hermit. I agree that "ex-shaper" is confusing for various reasons.
"Factionless Shaper" is maybe more precise than "neutral Shaper." If it's a factual and direct label, then for our purposes, it doesn't really matter what anybody in-world thinks about it.