John, thanks good to know it is more distinct. It seems I just need to state up front that the content of the signal transmitted from object to receiver can be regarded as information because a retina or photocell array (or other device) is able to convert the received energy frequencies and intensities into signals that can be incorporated into a product.
If I talk about a signal I think I should also be clear that it is not just a uniform signal emitted from a singular object but that the radiation profile that is being emitted varies with the location on the surface of the source and variations in illumination. The observer will receive electromagnetic radiation with a distinct spatial, and temporal origin profile, 'reflected' in the product that is generated.
I think you are saying that how the radiation is defined depends on whether it is being considered at the receiver end or emitter end. From the'point of view' of the emitter or any object incapable of turning the radiation into a product, it isn't information , but to an object that can and in particular those that I have tried to differentiate (as having or being reality interfaces), it is information. So the boundary you mention is one of 'viewpoint'. But those objects don't have opinions.
The differentiation of the radiation that has not itself changed, to being information from not being information, is to do with vocabulary and not physics. It makes 'information' a word dependent on the kind of relationship an object or phenomenon has to objects in its environment. I haven't thought of it in that way before but considered either something has the potential to be information or it hasn't. I was going for it has the potential therefor it isinformation. On reflection that potential alone definition would include almost everything. I have simultaneously been trying to get across that the EMr does not have a meaning of itself, by unhelpfully saying it is just information. Whereas I should have said it is just radiation.