Staged on #2777

Closes: #XXXX
Refs: #XXXX

## Description

No more symbol named methods in remotable. Needed for #2777 to make
sense. But a separate PR for now because it causes more errors to
investigate.

### Security Considerations

> Does this change introduce new assumptions or dependencies that, if
violated, could introduce security vulnerabilities? How does this PR
change the boundaries between mutually-suspicious components? What new
authorities are introduced by this change, perhaps by new API calls?

### Scaling Considerations

> Does this change require or encourage significant increase in
consumption of CPU cycles, RAM, on-chain storage, message exchanges, or
other scarce resources? If so, can that be prevented or mitigated?

### Documentation Considerations

> Give our docs folks some hints about what needs to be described to
downstream users. Backwards compatibility: what happens to existing data
or deployments when this code is shipped? Do we need to instruct users
to do something to upgrade their saved data? If there is no upgrade path
possible, how bad will that be for users?

### Testing Considerations

> Every PR should of course come with tests of its own functionality.
What additional tests are still needed beyond those unit tests? How does
this affect CI, other test automation, or the testnet?

### Compatibility Considerations

> Does this change break any prior usage patterns? Does this change
allow usage patterns to evolve?

### Upgrade Considerations

> What aspects of this PR are relevant to upgrading live production
systems, and how should they be addressed?

> Include `*BREAKING*:` in the commit message with migration
instructions for any breaking change.

> Update `NEWS.md` for user-facing changes.

> Delete guidance from pull request description before merge (including
this!)