There are many ways for definitions using the same names to disagree. Any attempt to be complete must be inconsistent, and any attempt to be consistent must be incomplete, because each word in the language of the question has historically been translated into and from mathematics in multiple ways. The most honest answer we can give is that it depends on the choices made by the authors of the document you are reading. In some books they coincide, but in others they don't. Even different editions of the same book by the same person can disagree, because in the years that passed between two revisions, the writer may have changed their mind. The best anyone can do is try to be unambiguous in defining each term they are going to use in the rest of the document they are writing, with some examples of how to translate that into the different meanings for the same terms that have been used by some other documents. This is true on the ground as well as in space --- when you say "local vertical", do you mean perpendicular to the reference ellipsoid, perpendicular to the geoid, perpendicular to the terrain, or something else?
Not all authors restrict themselves to right-handed, orthonormal frames. At the level of pure mathematics, all you need is a three-dimensional vector space at every point in three dimensions, but you can use a different vector space at every point, and the choice of connection between the vector spaces used at different points is arbitrary (and the term connection has a specific technical meaning which differs substantially from its use in other subjects). I would argue that the meaning most often encountered in spoken language is one of these: rather than argue about which one of "in-track" and "along-track" is parallel to velocity and which perpendicular to radius, most people talk as if they use unnormalized $\vec{r}$, $\vec{v}$, and $\vec{h}=\vec{r}\times\vec{v}$ (angular momentum per unit mass) as the local basis vectors, and just live with the fact that the angle between $\vec{r}$ and $\vec{v}$ is variable. I'll also note in passing that in my head, $\vec{r}$ is perifocal, but not everyone will think that, which has a significant impact on the definition of these frames for planets (orbiting the solar system barycenter, not the center of the sun).
Even for orthonormal frames, there remains the question of which direction gets which label. Where does the spacecraft +Z axis point? Anywhere the person talking about it wants, as long as they say what it is. There are no enforcement mechanisms, except possibly at the level of "if you work in my company you will use definition Q and no other or I will fire you"; but even if every satellite builder tried to do that internally, they would still end up picking different ones than their neighbors, causing havoc when trying to collaborate. A paying customer can incorporate any document they want into a contract, but each contract could be different. The standards making bodies recognize this, so they only make recommendations. For example, ANSI/AIAA S-131-2010, the American National Standard for Astrodynamics — Propagation Specifications, Technical Definitions, and Recommended Practices, closely resembles Vallado's book because Vallado was on the committee that wrote it, but all it does is list a bunch of ways it could be done, and then says "The use depends on the particular organization. Consistency and documentation are the important requirements."
