Compensations may infer a standard "Uncompensated Pattern". But, I think that if we look to the component level, we can compare one procedure to another on the basis of their relative simplicity, reliability, and compatibility with other components.

A good example of this would be to compare 10-18-A to 10-18-B. 10-18-A appears to be the more simple procedure.

Another example is Plane Shifting. Procedurally, Single Shift is more direct than a Double or Triple Shift.

On plane clubshaft, hands aligned to turned shoulder plane to start.

I would say that a pattern is efficient in how it is complicit to 1-L . . . . rather than a component listing. Much of this starting with selected plane . . . components to match the plane angle to a large degree.

I would say the only thing that ultimately matters is the efficient transfer of energy to the desired result.

Chapter 2 really, the line of compression. The impact interval.

There is likely a difference in looking at the efficient line of compression, vs the human input/energy to get a given amount of compression.

You can have a pattern full of compensations, but still have a really efficient line of compression as far as the ball/club.

On the 'human input' side of things, I agree that Stricker is a nice model.

Not so much less motion = efficient

but only "necessary" motion, and no more (which I would agree looks like 1-L)