Still, I want to explore this idea and see where it leads.

I did not mean to stop you.

The definition of trauma is complex and varies for everyone.

I disagree. Because the purpose of a definition is the exact opposite. If trauma really varies for everyone, than there is no definition possible at all. If traum is complex, than there is no simple definition possible.

We must not be fixed neither to a definition nor to a word. If someone asks for help, is that the fact and not our defintions and not our amateur (non-expertise) diagnostic skills.

I want to make the concept of trauma a bit easier to understand, at least for myself.

Only for yourself. It is neither our task nor our experience nor our expertise to make a concept "a bit easier".

any distressing experience that exceeds a person's ability to cope

That is the essential theme. We do not need to call it 'trauma'. We only have to listen to a person who says: 'This exceeds my ability to cope with". That's the point to start the conversation, the communication, the listening or reading.

And last not least: "I am an anchor" is just the answer to the question on what is your role. NOT the answer to: "Who am I?" This fundamental question is to be answered on another level. No one will reach this level neither by simplifying definitions nor by wanting to help others nor by being the anchorperson to join helpers with patients.