uPWarrior, the Ko and Dame Endgames paper is relevant for playing better under Area Scoring. Maybe "only" on average 1 point for the final score per game. But, think about it: If there would be 100 such papers, you would be 100 points better per game... - Under Territory Scoring, the paper is almost useless.
The 3 papers about ko definition and ko types are almost useless for players and their playing strength. These papers are important almost only for researchers. In fact, the papers are research papers rather than go books.
Most of my go theory that is specifically useful for players you do not find in research papers, webpages or online messages, but can find them in the commercial literature. (There are a few exceptions: a few things are already available, e.g., at Sensei's.)
In general, my go theory falls into two major types: either 1) written for go players' strength improvement or 2) research for its own sake.
I have listed the, in my opinion, most important inventions for players. uPWarrior, you seem to be doubting even their relevance for strength improvement? Consider, e.g., the 4th most important, the definition of stability. I see most players around (European) 5 kyu still making too many mistakes WRT to creating stability versus playing elsewhere. Everybody wishing to become a dan player is required to develop an understanding of stability expressed by or very similar to the definition. How can you call such essential knowledge "irrelevant for players"?!
Knotwilg, in
viewtopic.php?p=128299#p128299 you miss deeper understanding in my writings, when compared to Go Seigen's writings. To give a useful answer, can you please clarify which of my writings you have read? What do you mean by deeper understanding, as conveyed in writings?
(You don't just mean that a writing was specifically for your 2d level, do you? That could explain a lot because so far, in the texts for strength improvement, I have written also for kyu players and not exclusively for dans only. I could write specifically for dans to stress and encourage a deeper understanding, and for the better show that I have some:) However, some of my writings do also contain knowledge meant for dans. So I am really curious what kind of deeper understanding it is that you miss.)
EDIT:
You doubt that my selection of aspects, or my way to deconstruct and reconstruct knowledge, is the path to follow.
I do not select particular aspects to disregard all other aspects. Instead I have selected particular aspects for research or writings because I can, to simplify a bit, only explore one new aspect at a time. Basically, all topics of go theory could be important one way or another.
There are many paths to knowledge, and (apart from mathematically proven truths) certainly my way of structuring knowledge is not the only way. Apparently unlike you, I think that my way is a very good one!:)