No, Steve, the issue here is that you expect everyone to provide what you call a SSCCE and if then someone spends the time to create one, you happily add cruft to it so that what you test against is not what the original poster provided, claim something fixed that isn't and the shrug your shoulders claiming that's the poster's problem.

Please slim down your test case to an SSCCE by removing the name customizations in the @Entity annotations and see you test fail, too.

the inclusion of the @Table makes zero difference

I'd be careful with these kinds of statements but wait - care is not necessarily what you've demonstrated in this thread so far. Take my example, add @Table(name = "user", see how the test case goes green. Change the name to "User" (yes case matters here) see it blow up. Take away @Table again, run the test again, see it breaking again. Configure an entity name for User to anything except "User" (yes, case matters here), see the test case fail again. So ironically – as indicated above – you failed to create that SSCCE that you've been so notoriously asking for, failed to reproduce the behavior I was complaining about by hiding it behind a plethora of apparently unrelated customization.

I guess only God knows why configuring an entity name changes the behavior of the schema creation, but I leave the judgement of that connection to others. But please never ever tell someone a detail of the provided code doesn't make any difference, especially if you added it, thanks.

Btw. I provided sample the very first time in this comment. So claiming I would've edited stuff to my favor just nicely aligns with all the other stuff that came up in this thread. Two hours before that I wrote:

I got the error reproduced …. Will have that cleaned up and prepared for you by tomorrow or Monday the latest.

My follow up comment contained the link to the sample.

At some other point he changed his mind…

Yeah, sure…