Close, but not quite.

The first letter was the recorder used for initial recording, say a Studer A800 as an example of an analog multitrack or DASH as an example of a digital one).

The second letter was the recorder for the mixdown, i.e. usually some 2-channel system like an analog ATR-102 or Studer A80 or a digital DAT.

The third letter was the recorder for the master, which for CD by definition was always digital. In the early days usually a Sony U-matic, which funnily enough was an analog video tape format which got reused for digital audio (and is the reason for the odd 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the CD).

Edit:

The code was actually always considered a bit meaningless.

For example, you could record on a digital DASH, but mix on an analog SSL console and print the mix to a digital recorder. That would have been a DDD CD.

On the other hand, you could record on an analog A820, mix on a digital Studer desk, print the mix on an analog A80 and that would have been a AAD CD.

So, two codes indicating "pure" digital or "pure" analog, even though both processes used both technologies.

Or record on a ADAT and mix on a Yamaha 02/R, which would have been DDD but probably sounded worse than the AAD recorded on a Studer analog tape ;)

Late 80s or early 90s there was also a DAD type, which often sounded really good.

From that Wiki link-

In practice, DAD was very rare, as many companies (especially the well-known classical music labels) used digital tape recorders (which were not prohibitively more expensive than analog tape recorders) during the editing or mixing stage.

Why did you write "re-mastered" instead of simply "mastered" for ADD/DDD?