Some Muʿtazilī thinkers restricted rizq to lawful, permissible benefit that a person may rightfully enjoy. On that definition, unlawfully consumed property is not called provision even if a person has actually eaten it.
The alternative usage focuses on actual receipt and benefit, and therefore calls even unlawfully obtained food provision in an existential sense. Part of the disagreement concerns terminology, but it also involves theological questions about creation, permissibility, and attribution to God.
The two positions must not be read as though they began from an identical definition of the word.