no, it should be fried fish. In English there are 1. the noun ”fish fry” 2, the verb ”to have/do a fish fry”, and of course that which you eat at a fish fry is ”friend fish”. It certainly is not roasted or even considered that. A filet of fish is specifically that, and if it is friend it is simply a fried fish filet
So, is this simply a past passive participle, like the English "fried"? Would it indicate that the fish has been cooked in oil, i.e. fried? If so, then I would absolutely agree with you that the translation should refer to the cooking method, rather than the cut. The problem is that we have also had this word applied to beef, where it was translated as "steak." As I said, that should indicate the cut, not the cooking method. If a beef friputura would be fried in oil, then I would suggest it should be translated "fried steak" or even, for us Americans, "chicken-fried steak," if it is breaded and fried like a schnitzel. The word "steak" alone applied to beef would indicate broiling or some sort of other method involving flaming or searing.
This is interesting, because when preparing fish, we distinguish between a steak, which is a simple slice of the fish, as if it were a loaf of bread, from a fillet, which is the entire muscular side of a fish removed in one piece. But then, I have only ever heard of salmon steaks and shark steaks. I imagine other large fish might be prepared that way too, though.
Quite! In British English one does not use the term fish steak. I knew it was not fried fish so I cheated and looked at the prompt. That said roasted fish. Well, Walton's Compleat Angler is always roasting fish but again, I have never heard anyone asking for that! Duo even rejected their prompt.