Is it fair to say that golf instructors can be roughly grouped into 2 broad camps?
One group believes that some movement patterns are inherently more consistent and repeatable than others.
The other basically believes that any set of movements is good enough if it moves the clubhead at reasonable speed, on a good path and angle of attack through the ball, and with a clubface that is either square to complementary to the path. And consistency then comes from repetition, routine, mental processes etc
I don't have an established view as to which camp, if either, is "right". As far as I can see, there are instructors with good reputations working with both philosophies. If anything, I think the latter approach might tie in with the OP - except that I didn't really see him adequately define "sound technique" when pushed.
What are faults and compensations? I have no problem where a swing trait is identified that tends to plough the clubhead into the ground, or creates a misaligned clubpath. For me, the situation is much murkier where people get to talking about faults and compensations that yield a basically square clubface and path at impact. And of course, tour pros are generally pretty good at doing just that. (Though if they hit the ball straight all the time, they wouldn't all have swing coaches...)