Acted is a verb which can take an adjective in what looks like a modifying position. Some verbs are like that; they are called copular (or copulative or copula) verbs. Let's consider the verb look, where using an adjective and an adverb produce different meanings.
For some meanings, you have to use nice:
John looked very nice in his new clothes.
*John looked very nicely in his new clothes.
For others, you have to use nicely.
John looked at me very nicely.
*John looked at me very nice.
In the first example, very nice is in some sense modifying John, while in the second, very nicely is modifying looked.
For the verb act, you can use either an adjective or an adverb:
John acted very strange.
John acted very strangely.
and the meaning isn't any different between these two sentences (or at least not much). I would say that in the first sentence, John is acting as if he was very strange, and in the second sentence, John's actions are very strange. In this case, the meanings end up being the same. But consider:
John acted very quiet.
John acted very quietly.
Now, these mean different things. In the first, John is simply being quiet. In the second, John is doing something and trying hard not to call attention to it.
Best Answer
There is nothing wrong with re-termed. (Although, as was mentioned in some comments, it might be better to say renamed instead.)
However, what struck me as odd about the sentence is there is no explicit mention of the metric being named anything in the first place. In order to re- something, it must be done at least once to start with.
As such, I would find this more natural:
It's possible that it's this point the reviewer was raising.
Applying the suggestion for using renamed instead, and tweaking something else at the end which isn't directly relevant, I might also rephrase the sentence in this way: