I would like to know whether the explanation given here: explanation is clear and unambiguous. It seems to me that the comments leveled against it are not fair.
If I say in English: "It would seem that the reasoning here is A, B, C", that that phrase provides an explanation that is not based on any particular standard but it attempts to show the logic behind a particular usage might be based on what is standard grammar. It implies one is explaining what is found in usage and not what is prescriptively "mandated". And in this particular case, there is really no way to prove my opinion.
I am going to give the example again: - US GAAP (US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles)
That is a fact. What could possibly be the explanation about why one does not use the determiner the as in "The US GAAP" as part of the name for this set of principles?? It seems reasonable to me that the reasoning here is that since those writing about this know what the abbreviation stands for and those who created them did not put "the" in their name, it's because these are principles. And plural nouns in English don't require a "the". In the same way as any other general statement: Apples are good for you. Horses neigh. Laws are made to be followed.
And how could this, in any case, be "proven"? I don't think it can. However, it does cohere with English usage.
There is no way to "prove" why the original creators of the US GAAP [the is not part of the title here] didn't make the word "the" part of the title.
I found that I had to repeat my reasoning about three times, and still the comments to me were repeated over and over. I asked for mod intervention and did not receive any help. Meanwhile, there has been no other effort to help the OP and the question remains open.
Not everything can be proven. But facts (the fact US GAAP does not contain the determiner THE) can be reasonably explained. So, my question remains: what does one do when a question requires a reasonable and reasoned explanation because there is not way to "prove it"?