I'm generally in agreement with what you say above. There are lots of individual events (some sequential, some parallel) taking place in any given technique and it's worthwhile for any instructor/coach to know exactly what those events are, and when exactly they happen.
Something we've never really talked about is the difference between a "technique" and a "movement pattern". As I see it, a technique is a specific collection of movement patterns applied in a given timing pattern. This makes it easy for me to differentiate between things like a White Pass Turn and PWT as well as many other concepts in frequent dispute.
I think it's the list of specific elements and specific timings for each particular "Named Pattern" (techniques in particular) that cause so many debates around here. Even when participants are debating Outcomes, we're generally deriving our vastly different perceived/expected outcomes because we've not actually agreed on the specific inputs we're evaluating that Pattern with.
I suspect many hotly contested ideas are only contested because the advocates know (and/or simply execute) the correct movements and timings to make them work well while opponents of the idea don't know (or don't execute) the correct movements/timings to make it work as others are claiming. Unfortunately, each time we try to analyze a pattern and spell out exactly what to move and exactly when to move it ... someone cries, "Too Complicated!!!" and we revert once more to simplistic (and inaccurate/incomplete) descriptions.
Personally, I like to see descriptions specific enough to "see in my head" exactly what to do. I can then go out and execute the maneuver/technique on-snow and it will work as expected.