I know you mean no insult, but I would not call a 3.0 a beginner.
A 3.0 is a player who, for whatever reason, struggles against 3.5 players. Those reasons can be being a newbie. But the reason can also be simply infrequency of play, injury, lack of athletic ability, or age.
My sister has been a 3.0 for 12 years. She took up the sport as a 2.5, got bumped up, took a very long hiatus, then hurt her knee and had two surgeries, and now she travels so much and works such long hours that she rarely plays. And since she is my older sister, she is older. I think 3.0 suits her at the moment.
To my ears, then, this sounds needlessly dismissive: "No biggi imo at that level (3.0 isn't even remotely close to decent play in the grand scheme of things. 3.0 is bare beginner imo)." I say 3.0 is one of many stepping stones on someone's tennis journey, and it is no more or less worthy of respect than 4.0.
Anyway, you never answered my question, which is this: Is there any chance you would have actually demonstrated the spreadeagle frying pan smash if the 3.0 league ladies were getting frustrated at the direction to turn when going back for their smash?
Like you said, not trying to be dismissive, but to me a 3.0 player is a beginner tennis player for whatever reason (doesn't matter what the reason). To me it can't be simply put as "they struggle against 3.5" because at the 3.0 level most if not all, will have GLARING fundamental problems and lack of overall tennis experience, knowledge, and strategy for whatever the reason. Would you not call a 2.5 a beginner then? Only say they are players struggling against 3.0? Imo if you were accomplished, but then got hurt, stopped playing etc etc. It would be very very difficult to fall back into 3.0 level unless you could literally not move at all, but that's a very rare exception.
Eg: I could have played basketball for 20 years, but if I have no concept of basketball strategy, plays, how to shoot, how to defend, how to dribble, I would still consider myself a beginner. My concept of basketball is "getting the ball in the hoop." That's a beginner haha. Not trying to insult, not trying to be dismissive, just calling it imo what it is. There's no shame in being a beginner. To me it's the players who are real beginners who think they are pros or think they are better than certain drills/progessions because "they are experienced" which really hurts the game.
And no, I would never have demonstrated frying pan smash, but it doesn't seem like your pro did that either? He just mentioned if they were doing frying pan smash they shouldn't turn sideways?
At my old work place we classified NTRP into general categories (assuming players were 18-25 years of age):
1. NTRP 2.5 - Never played a "absolute beginner"
2. NTRP 3.0 - Casually played, maybe middle school lessons (a beginner)
3. NTRP 3.5 - Highschool player, somewhat competitive (varsity in most cases)
4. NTRP 4.0 - Very competitive highschool player, occasional USTA tournament
5. NTRP 4.5+ USTA Tournament Junior, college etc.
Obviously that is not absolute rules, but I felt it was a great way to classify most people in a better sense. Obviously still lots of variation within, but I really liked it put like that.