In general, to me, "hard use" is a marketing term designed to let makers and companies get away with selling knives that are only halfway ground, and have 5 times more steel left on them than necessary to cut well, while at the same time allowing the maker/company to inflate the price because the half-ground knife may actually get damaged when some Youtuber decides it's a good idea to define "hard use" himself with a hammer and cinder blocks, and they have to warrant the knife. That's generally my take on it.
ETA: Don't forget to add 10-15% to the price for the "hard use" label itself.
Exactly, "Hard Use" apparently is any use a company can vaguely suggest/hint at/market/advertise to sell expensive thick/heavy folding knives, unless that use damages the knife, in which case it was obviously abusive and something you shouldn't use any knife for. If a folding knife is only for nice vertical cutting 90% of the popular folding knives are poor examples. If that's what we limit "hard' use to a folding paring knife with high end steel will out perform most popular folders by a huge margin in "hard use" cutting.
It's not that I think a person should expect a folder to stand up to being beat through bricks with a hammer, prying a car door open, doing pull ups on, etc. but it's ridiculous that these companies market their knives as hard use, overbuilt, tactical, tank knives then call it abusive when people use them for tasks that demand more strength, durability, and lock integrity than the average SAK knife would survive.
I guess it's like buying a 4x4 now days, most of them are no longer designed to actually be used off road and won't hold up to it, should it break off roading, you obviously abused it. They just market them as durable off road vehicles to sell $45K cars with big tires.