Etymologically speaking, there are many options for how to render this word. Yet, we should never forget that it is ignorance>sankhara that is the basis for dependent origination, “this mass of suffering”. It seems that we should always be trending towards a usage that doesn’t neglect this most significant description.
Though, it will not always be the case that a reference to DO is an explicit. Here is unique passage from SN 22.57
Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? Chayime, bhikkhave, cetanākāyā— rūpasañcetanā …pe… dhammasañcetanā. Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā. Phassasamudayā saṅkhārasamudayo; phassanirodhā saṅkhāranirodho. Ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo saṅkhāranirodhagāminī paṭipadā, seyyathidaṁ— sammādiṭṭhi …pe… sammāsamādhi.
And what, bhikkhus, are volitional formations? There are these six classes of volition: volition regarding forms … volition regarding mental phenomena. This is called volitional formations. With the arising of contact there is the arising of volitional formations. With the cessation of contact there is the cessation of volitional formations. This Noble Eightfold Path is the way leading to the cessation of volitional formations; that is, right view … right concentration.
This seems to point out that sankhara, from the point of view of the five aggregates, is heavily in the domain of cetana (intention), bound up with contact, and something to practice towards the cessation of via the eightfold path. So DO is implied, though is not the direct focus of this description.
All in all, sankhara has to do with the things that are basis for ignorance, which is to say they are the basis for suffering and samsara, for not knowing the four noble truths. Remember the king from DN 17? When he was about to pass away his wife tried to make him feel good about his life by describing the possessions that defined his life. He was upset by this in his final hour because he now understood those things as, “undesirable, unpleasant, and disagreeable.” When asked how he preferred to be addressed at the end, he said:
Like this, my queen: “Sire, we must be parted and separated from all we hold dear and beloved. Don’t pass away with concerns. Such concern is suffering, and it’s criticized. Sire, you have 84,000 cities, with the royal capital of Kusāvatī foremost. Give up desire for these! Take no interest in life!”’ And so on for all the king’s possessions.
(“Such concern is suffering.” What a HUGE gem!)
Come to find out at this point, that the Buddha was this King Mahāsudassana in the past, at which point he goes on to describe the possessions once again, but now refers to them as sankhara:
Passānanda, sabbete saṅkhārā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā. Evaṁ aniccā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā; evaṁ addhuvā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā; evaṁ anassāsikā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā. Yāvañcidaṁ, ānanda, alameva sabbasaṅkhāresu nibbindituṁ, alaṁ virajjituṁ, alaṁ vimuccituṁ.
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Those possessions were sankhara in the sense they defined his entire life as a king, which is to say they were the things that supported that mass of suffering. And the instructions are so wonderfully concise here: “become disillusioned, dispassionate and free” from what sankhara support.
Whatever word is used, it is the connotations that will matter the most. I don’t think they’ll be a usage anywhere in the suttas that does not in some way apply to the broad meaning described above in DN 17 and in any sutta about DO. As pointed out in AN 9.36 in this post, the principle of sankhara, available on account of jhana, should be used to discern the deathless.
Hope this is useful to the discussion.