I don't mean to make it a minefield. There are probably people who might be able to describe this better.
The idea of the yana of a sravaka that exists in the Mahayana thought-world exists in contrast with various other yanas and in a context with a number of implications and assumptions that are not necessarily overlapping with the Theravada. And so even though it might be safe to say, in general terms, that Theravada is a "discipe's vehicle", the methods under the same name that exist in the Mahayana context do not necessarily align with what Theravadins actually think and do.
Not to say that it is necessarily "completely off the mark", but differing in various details. And the devil is in the details, they say. If you want to know what the Theravada tradition actually does do in more detail, there's plenty of introductory resources around here.