Sigh. I really don't want to go into this again, but some of the particularly valuable bits that PCT has relative to other negative-feedback theories of human behavior are the aspects of:

1. Hierarchical control structure
2. Parallel/simultaneous operation
3. Quasi-evolutionary unattended learning ("reorganization")
4. The central importance of conflicting reference values in behavioral problems

Nothing else that I know of in the fields of psychology or self-help combines these elements in the same framework; even those self-help authors who've addressed high-level feedback loops in human behavior (e.g. Maltz's psycho-cybernetics, Eker's "wealth thermostat", etc.) have barely touched on any of the above.

All evidence showed that you were just going by intuition and then applying PCT labels that gave no explanatory (data-compressive) insight

Be precise. What you have, specifically, is no evidence that you could not also use as evidence for your position, and therefore you choose to assume that I'm lying and/or deluded. (Why, I couldn't say.)

You were never able to give an example of how PCT modeling got you (or would have gotten you) to a crucial insight any faster.

Any faster than what?

Honestly, all of your arguments on this subject have struck me as similar to a creationist saying that evolution isn't any simpler, because you still have to explain how every single creature evolved, so how does that save you anything?

AFAICT, it's the exact same argument, and also a fully-general counterargument for ANY modeling method.