What I really wonder is whether Asian literature has made any (or even many?) previous efforts of relating influence to territorial values. The only piece I have seen so far is the few pages in Go World 41.
I have two Japanese books devoted to the subject, and others which mention it in part. I have talked about them before on the forums, so I'm not going to go into it again.* But one book uses the technique of counting stones in a wall, giving tips for which stones to exclude, and it encompasses also walls that go round corners. From this you get a count that represents a territory equivalent, using a short equation. It uses specific phrases like "Black's thickness is worth 36 points."
As you say, it is very hard to re-invent the wheel. But not just because of the intellectual effort involved. It's usually hard to be original because someone, somewhere, has already found the wheel before you. And some pros have even added engines to theirs.
Although I'm not prepared to dig out the books again, I will mention one article, from Kido Vol. 38, No.9, August 1962, simply because it is within hand's reach of where I am sitting. It is called "The territory of thickness." It was by Sakauchi Junei.
I'm afraid even Robert Jasiek is not an original. Sakauchi was the Japanese Jasiek. He was an amateur 5-dan who wrote several papers on the mathematics of go, and indeed he is politely credited with "contributions" to miai theory (around 1955). But what this means specifically is not that he helped any pros to become stronger, just that he was apparently the first one to tease out the exact values of moves such as 4 and 11/16 and 6 and 3/32. Of course, pros - shock horror - still make do with "almost 5" and "a bit over 6". No doubt you'll claim they are making faulty "strategic" decisions, but I don't think they are losing any sleep over it. (This is reminiscent of a certain paper on ko dame, is it not?)
Sakauchi even sounds like Jasiek, with his love of definitions. His first sentence in the paper at hand is "Thickness is uncompleted territory." He likewise insists his way is "correct" (one heading is "Counting territory correctly"). This paper too has number-fixated phrases like "The thickness formed by Black's five stones is worth 10 points". He says things like: [of the prospective territory of a two-stone formation] "The territory is 22 or 23 points. Each stone is therefore worth 11 or 12 points". He talks about an evaluation in which "a 4.5 point territory cancels out an opponent's 4.5 point territory." The six-page article is also peppered with diagrams that use crosses to delineate prospective territory just as in Robert's book, but it also uses triangles and slashes to add a layer of meaning (as in p-territory, q-territory....).
So, Robert, please accept two things. (1) Your English is not as good as you think it is. (2) You are not as original as you think you are. I'm sure these two points apply to most of us, but most of us prefer to shy at the coconut, not be the coconut
). But we can still give Robert credit for working hard to discover them for himself. He is not as complete as he claims, e.g. his forcing moves section missed the chance for a list: the difference between kikashi, kiki, kikashidoku and uchidoku). But who ever is complete? 
