Let’s speak on most likely. If you don’t agree with something you got to be specific. Better technique does reduce the chances of injury if all things are equal. The racking of the weight is the most obvious. Documentation on weight training injuries are clear of why. The more skilled the more consistent and consistency of technique is part of the technique umbrella. Carry over is obvious as athletes can dead lift it and jump under but miss the extension. All be equal who will get more out of it DBandre?
Load is obvious as faster bar speed may have the same output as a heavier load but the racking will be less stressful.
As for those judging technique you must look at the risks to both injury acutely from the lift, over time from the lift, and possible imbalances to the the body poisoning the athlete. It is unlikely to have someone get the bar to point B on a power clean without #1 and raw power and some specificity is why we lift. Technique is to be safe and help with 2 and 3 but athletes are looking for the adaptations in the body hence why some only hang or why some power snatch and could care less about the jerk. The pull is king and the other adaptations are B, C, D, on priority.
My slight disagreement on transference revolves around the specificity of the movement task to the competitive task and the state of the physiological and biomechanical systems of the body in terms of abilities to perform at a high level between the 2 if there is sufficient skill at the 2 activities. The muscular balance an athlete exhibits should be related to competitive event performance and not to singular task performances. Therefore, if you are using a task to increase strength and power at the hips during extension as well as other attributes and hip extension is not really involved or all that powerful then there is a problem and very little carry over, but the technique someone uses is limited by their current abilities and over time their body will tend to use the path of least resistance. Therefore the job of the coach is ensure the path of least resistance is not going to reinforce an imbalance or create a new one which will hinder performances. There should be great leeway in terms of defining proper technique. If all is equal, the athlete with greatest demands towards event specificity and remodeling their body towards their competitive events or tasks gets the most out of training. If something is missing from training to provide a stimulus then it’s the coaches job to reorganize the training elicit the stimulus wanted. The reorganization of training can be a multitude of things ranging from cues, to exercise prescription, to loading parameters (mass, speed, repetition, duration)….
As far as injuries goes, the human body is highly adaptable, but even the adaptations have limits and these differ between individuals. The ability to squat 500 lbs takes a different musculature and different training demands than it does to clean 300 lbs. The body adapts to demands placed on it. We cannot place everyone in a box and say this is how you need to do this, that, and the other. We need to train them towards competitive competence and ultimately to competitive success. This requires great risk for injury and one of the coaches jobs is to minimize this risk.