Being truly unordered like a set is not something you can do in a physical computer program unlike a mathematical abstraction. Anything stored is "ordered" in some way, either explicitly by virtual (or physical) memory addresses or implicitly by some kind of storage map equation (like a bitmap/bitvector or N-D C/Fortran array). It just might not be a useful ordering. (I.e., you may have to loop and compare.)

One might qualify such as "system-ordered", or in the Python insert-ordered dict, qualify with "insertion-ordered", though hash tables in general are sort of a melange of hash-ordering. The same container may also support efficient iteration in multiple orders (e.g., trees often support key order as well as another order, like VM/node pool slot number order).

So, in this context (where things are obviously elements of a computer program), it isn't obvious that hair-splitting over ordered vs. sorted in their purest senses is very helpful when what is really missing is qualification.

Of course, like in many things, people tend to name computer program elements after their abstractions. This is where confusion often comes from (and not just in computing!) .. borrowing the names without all the properties (or maybe with more properties, as in this case, though that is all probably a bit iffy with the frailty of how you enumerate/decompose properties).

EDIT: In a similar way, in a realized computer, almost any "set" representation can also be a "map". You just add satellite data. Even a bit-vector can have a "parallel vector" with satellite data you access after the bits (which could even be pointful in terms of cache access). This can cause similar confusions to the "ordered" vs. "sorted" stuff.