https://polylith.gitbook.io/polylith/introduction/polylith-in-a-nutshell This page describes Polylith as a way to simplify the way we write "modular monoliths". Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it "distributed monoliths" (Unless we only use a single base in our project)?
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point, but let's explore it further. We can use the Polylith codebase as an example.
It has 40 components, two bases, and two projects. We build one poly CLI tool from it by taking one of the bases and most of the components. We don't build an artifact from the other base, it's just used from the command line. The second artifact is the clj-poly library that we build.
As you can see, Polylith doesn't force you to run your software in a certain way, and I think that's the main reason why we don't include "distributed" in the description of it.