Maybe your motivation of discussing these two phrases is related to my use of 'factual' in the sense of German 'sachlich'.
I'd say it would be rather rare to translate 'sachlich' as 'factual'. 'Pertinent' or 'objective' or even topazq's 'valid' spring to mind first, although I would accept 'factual explanation' for 'Sacherklaerung'. Perhaps we'd most often want 'tatsaechlich' for what we mean by 'factual', though I admit English speakers also often use 'factual' to mean 'according to my opinion'.
You feel the integrity and relevance of your work are under "attack". I can't here or in other threads see how you can justify that factually for the most part. My sense is that it is simply the presentation that grates. Obviously even on, say, relevance some people may have an opinion that differs from yours (for example, I think your work is not likely to be relevant to human teaching but could be highly relevant to computer programming), but since when is holding a different opinion on the same set of observations an attack? What is an attack (to use your word) is to assert repeatedly, without adding new information, that the approach, knowledge or preferences that other go players have are vague, ambiguous, worthless, cowardly, etc etc while also maintaining that one's own path of alleged logic is infallible. The majority of readers here have invested a lot of time and money in cultivating a common interface by which they can discuss things - they have bought and read the same books, shared the same experiences, and so on. On L19 they simply want to sit sociably at the party table enjoying their trifle and other goodies. They don't want one guest to be trying to nail his jelly to the ceiling above them, to filch a phrase from my sage GoGoD colleague, T Mark Hall. Jelly nailing is fine if you do it in the privacy of your own room. Asking you to do that is not an attack on your jelly, nor on you. It is simply an observation that there is a time and place for everything.
In short, it is about presentation. And lo and behold, I see a post presented so that we can all relate to it and enjoy it and empathise with it. It begins, "Concerning the existence of efficiency as a strategic concept". If this form of presentation can be kept up, I wholeheartedly welcome the newcomer to the party table.
Taking my cue from that, and so becoming willing to have a discussion, I offer the following thoughts relating to the line "proper moves [whether they are efficient or too slow]", and of course to the main topic of this thread. I quote below from a chapter on egosim in the excellent book The Seven Deadly Chess Sins. Author GM Jonathan Rowson is making the point that players tend to see positions only from their own point of view and want to satisfy only their own urges. As part of this he discusses "Populist Prophylaxis". I give a long quote, but I think that if you mentally substitute honte (proper move) for prophylaxis as you read this, there are superb insights here for go players - not necessarily new information, but just seeing the topic of honte from a different angle may bring it all into better focus for you.
POPULIST PROPHYLAXIS
The greatest skill in chess lies in not allowing the opponent to show you what he can do. GM GARRY KASPAROV
Prophylaxis. It's an awkward word that I can never remember how to spell and I feel pretentious every time I say it. Many players think of it as something profound that Nimzowitsch conjured up but nobody fully understands, and I suspect most club players consider it an entirely foreign concept, not applicable to the hussle and bussle [spellings sic! JF] of your average game. Watson (Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy) does an excellent job of surveying recent thinking on the matter, including the instructive writings of Dvoretsky and Yusupov (Positional Play and Training for the Tournament Player) and Tisdall (Improve Your Chess Now) but in all of these cases I have the impression that many readers must find the whole idea of prophylaxis a bit perplexing, occurring only in exceptional circumstances and something which only happens over 2600 level.
This is certainly my experience when teaching the idea to junior and adult players. There is an inclination to admire prophylaxis from a distance, as if it were something to be revered as a part of chess culture, but not incorporated into chess below a certain level. This is sad because it's really not such a regal or exclusive area, and I believe it can and should be used and understood by players of all strengths. [....] Once you start to look at positions with an awareness of your opponent's perspective, you are already thinking prophylactically to an extent. Indeed, as far as I can tell, prophylactic thinking needn't be considered as anything more than a state of mind whereby you are aware of your own plans and how they relate to your opponent's. [....]
Through a long and somewaht alcoholic grapevine in Holland I heard that GM Artur Yusupov, who had recently been coaching in Apeldoorn, had proclaimed that "If you understand prophylaxis, you understand chess". A few months after hearing this I found myself climbing up a more sober grapevine and on reaching the top I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the man himself. I asked if this quotation was an accurate reflection of what he had said and, not surprisingly, was told by Yusupov that he did not make such an extravagant claim. However, he did say that although the given statement is an over-simplification, it is not very far from the truth and that a close study of top players and their thinking processes reveals that prophylaxis is never far from the minds of the strongest players. Yusupov singled out Kasparov in this respect, whom he referred to as "deeply prophylactic" [....]
Yusupov was also keen to stress that prophylaxis should not be seen as in any way defensive or passive, but rather as a very active, even aggressive way of looking at chess. This was a particularly interesting insight because another aspect of the average player's thoughts on prophylaxis is that it tends to lead to highly profound but usually quite defensive moves, and of course this may not appeal to your average 1800 hacker. The truth, however, is that prophylaxis is every bit as important in attack as it is in defence.
If I may, I will add yet another insight of my own from chess which relates to "speed of extensions and connections [move type]". As is well known, the pawn structure determines almost all chess strategy. But if you change 'pawn structure' into 'moyo' and transfer the strategic thinking to go, you can understand go in a new light. First it has to be undertood that moyo is simply a framework for a territory. It does not have to be big, nor does it belong only in Takemiya's games. Every mapping out of a potential territory in every game is a moyo. Therefore, every go game has a moyo structure in just the same way that every chess game has a pawn structure. Masters are those who are familiar with many such structures. Second, in the west, for reasons of historical accident, we have been taught only about big moyos and only how to deal with erasing them or invading them. We have not been taught the primary Japanese concepts, which apply to all moyos large or small, of kamae (construction) and kakoi (surrounding). My suggestion therefore is that you start to look on moyos in a new light, and learn how to build them large and SMALL, and then how to surround them, but in such a way that you begin to observe the patterns that come up in every single game, not just Takemiya's.
