Probing for weaknesses = Probing weaknesses?

I just noticed something for the first time: some chess authors refer to "probing for weaknesses," other say "probing weaknesses." Is this the same thing? Conceptually, there is a difference since the latter term suggests a weakness already exists, whereas the former term suggests no weakness yet exists and maybe is trying to be created.

Here's a game from Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games" where Fischer refers to the rook as "probing weaknesses," which makes sense since Black's a6-pawn is relatively undefended:

On the other hand, in the following video kingscrusher describes "probing weaknesses" via Bh7+ and Be4, which seems to be a different concept since no obvious weaknesses yet exist; White seems to be hoping Black will misplay.

Yet then he mentions the queen at b3 can shift to the kingside later to probe the (existing) weakness of Black's advanced h6-pawn. So is he using one term to describe two different concepts? Is he just being careless in his terminology?

Caro-Kann Defence : Michael Adams vs David Alberto - Probing two weaknesses! (Chessworld.net)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH5GU4PhaiU

The way i see probing FOR weaknesses is looking for an area to exploit, whereas probing weaknesses suggests there are already areas to exploit and weaken them further

Yes, it could be my own misunderstanding, that there exist two different concepts with two different terms, and I mistakenly assumed they were the same. That would make sense... Except that kingscrusher's narration describes the two different conceptual cases with the same term. Maybe kingscrusher is confused.