The idea that relocation would imply a different object is more of a conceptual perspective than a strict language rule. In practice, the owned object typically won't be relocated, but that is not a requirement enforced by the unique_ptr itself
that was pretty unclear in the message I sent yeah, I sought to imply that "object never being relocated ever because language says so" = "wrapped pointer to the object never ever changes (unless you force the unique_ptr to do just that)"