While it's generally ok to study the anarchist perspective on any topic, I would caution against getting caught up in "definitionalism" and related absolutisms. Language is vague. There are no fixed definitions or meanings. There are no magic words. It can be counter-productive to insist on certain definitions or absolutist slogans. It's more about understanding your audience and their definitions, then building bridges and establishing clear communication based on mutual understanding.

The an anarchist faq has a section for it, Section B.1:

• https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionB.html#secb1

it's breadtube, but Andrewism is still the first online source i've found to define 'authority' the way i and meatspace comrades have used it:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-how-anarchy-works#toc2 (~5 minutes to read)

he references Bakunin, with some generative critique.

I think you might find this text interesting. It offers a simple yet precise take on how authority should be viewed in anarchist spaces: No Rules, No Rulers

Here are some quite descriptive quotes:

[1]

The existence of rules can only be fully understood by exploring how rulers came to be. The introduction of private property is seen as a pivotal moment in the origin of rule. As a few individuals began to accumulate wealth under this new system, social hierarchies formed, and those at the top of this hierarchy appointed authority figures and armed them with a monopoly on violence to protect their property and enforce rules on their behalf. This wealthy minority accumulated increasing wealth by dividing the land among themselves before coercing those who once lived off the land freely into their servitude. They accomplished this by directing their governments to enact laws that criminalized living off the land without the landowner’s permission, effectively compelling everyone who did not own land to work for landowners in order to survive.

[2]

“Norms” necessitates “abnormality”. The existence of a “norm” logically creates a non-norm, or a deviation. The problem isn’t the deviation itself, but the negative connotation and social consequences associated with being labeled “abnormal.” The word “abnormal” is often pathologizing, othering, or stigmatizing.

[...]

The argument that rules can exist without rulers is as nonsensical as the idea of a court existing without a justice system. In the absence of a governing body, rules become mere suggestions, lacking any true power or authority, and thus cease to be rules. The practical reality is that any attempt to establish and maintain a system of rules will naturally lead to the formation of a body responsible for their creation and enforcement, thereby establishing a form of governance.

I'm also curious about this, because the definition that tankies use is surely not right, but I don't have receipts