Would you prefer "non-Cliffordness"?

Does using words that are more of a mouthful make scientist more credible?

Absolutely. "non-Cliffordness" by consturction already implies "Cliffordness", which by construction implies "Clifford" and then connects other related things. Magic doesn't do that exactly, but instead slips unnecessary connections. Clifford as a name relates to a matematician who was probably dead by the time anyway. It is considerably more neutral as a name and "free" of unrelated context. I am not knowledgeable about it, but I also wouldn't be suprised if Clifford works are also related to mathematical facilities in quantum theories where the name is invoked.

When trying to understand the reality and then convey that understanding, "mouthfulness" seems like not a concern at all.