I agree with all of this. My comment was specifically to sport/competition, since that's what Kit Dale does, and that seemed to be what people were arguing out beforehand. I personally know the entrance I'm most comfortable doing to enter distance and end a fight quickly, and constantly do it to the people I train with; it's a reflex and I like it. But if I started competing that may start being an issue.
This is one of the traps we have to watch for. We can draw an incorrect conclusion about the effectiveness of a technique (or combo), because our training partners are getting better at predicting/reading/stopping it, because they train with us. For competition, that would only matter if we're competing against those people OR our competitors are likely to be researching us (probably only at higher levels). Otherwise, as you point out, predictability isn't much of an issue, so long as it's not the same predictability for everyone in that style (problem for competition) or because we have a huge tell (problem for competition and possibly for defense).
Even in competition, it would only be an issue after the first couple of times in a bout, or if they've researched you (even just watching your bouts earlier in the day in a day of competition). After that point, if you have a second-favorite, you can mix it in to be less predictable. Add a third that capitalizes on the openings they create when expecting the other two, and you have enough to keep them guessing.
The opportunity may not always be there. Most of the time, you want to create such opportunity. This is why you will need to plan ahead of the time.
You (general YOU) should not expect the entering strategy to work all the time. If your opponent knows how to move back and remain distance. You may have to do it again. But since you only need it to work once, patient is important here.
The move may be chosen, but they don't have to think through the movement as they do it. Here's the simplest (and nearly accurate) example I can think of off the top of my head: walking. I can walk without thinking about how I walk. That gives me the option of walking without thinking (just walking between two places, not needing to think about the route), or to walk carefully following a specific route I choose (to avoid the wet-paint walls, lava on the floor, or whatever). Both are examples of unconscious competence. An example of conscious competence is if I have to think, "Shift weight to right, lift left, place left over there, now shift weight to it..." We learn to be UC in walking while we're still learning to talk, so we don't remember that. But most of us remember doing a technique and having to think all the parts. So, imagine doing a Kimura lock, and having to think, "Right hand over here, make sure that thumb is tucked, keep controlling his head, keep pressure and base, left arm over there...." Once you reach UC, you can choose to control and expose his arm, then go for the Kimura, with your hands "knowing" where to go and how to maintain control. You may still have some conscious thought in adapting to his attempts to stop you - you can afford that thought because you don't have to think about how the heck a Kimura works. Your unconscious competence is what makes that elasticity possible.
Good example - yes. I would make more conscious choices of where to walk, and would have to pay more attention to my stepping (I don't sneak a lot, so my actions are more conscious there). If I'm sneaking up on someone on concrete, and I'm wearing really soft shoes, I probably can do that without thinking about steps - just being more selective in my approach. If I'm sneaking up on someone in the woods (twigs and leaves on the ground), I'm probably going to have to choose each step and each weight transfer - it becomes much more conscious at that point.
