I do not feel like I am following the 'jqueryui' vs 'jquery.ui.widget' reference discussions, here is my understanding on how this code would be delivered for AMD projects:

The developer gets a folder of the jQuery UI modules into their AMD project (could be via a package manager or just manual unzip). That folder is named something. It does not really matter what the name is (developer could choose any name), but pretend they call it 'jqueryui'. Although, a specific folder name suggestion is probably a good idea so the developer consuming widgets made by others all use the same ID. So I suggest encouraging the 'jqueryui' name, or some standard name of your choosing.

Now, the developer wants to use jquery.ui.widget.js in their AMD project. They would either set the path for 'jqueryui' to that jqueryui folder or place the folder in the folder used for baseUrl.

To refer use the widget factory, they should use the 'jqueryui' prefix for all modules in that directory. So, they would use dependency IDs like 'jqueryui/jquery.ui.widget' and 'jqueryui/jquery.ui.autocomplete'. This all works out and is good.

If someone is suggesting the code would be consumed differently than above, then that is probably the place where I get lost.

Side note: if you wanted to make things shorter for AMD users, since all the files are already in a folder name (the 'jqueryui' mentioned in this example), then the files inside that directory can just be names like widget.js and autocomplete.js. I understand though if that is not possible for other reasons, just suggesting a benefit resulting from the IDs all being suffixes under the folder name.