When someone does something that does not make sense and/or wastes products and/or gives him poorer results than what's possible, he's not lazy. He's just doing something that doesn't make sense, and used more products than necessary, and that could have been done better and smarter.
Is "qualify as" a synonym of "product name is"? Then why are you asking? Especially that your question has already been answered in my post.
Chemical composition of a particular product has nothing to do with the "general theory" of scratches and polishing. You don't need to know the exact chemical formulation of a particular product to understand how it achieves something.
Do you need know the chemical composition of a hammer to know how it can be used to hammer in nails? Or do you need to know the chemical composition of a blue paint to paint your room blue with it, or to know that if you apply it to your wall it will make it blue? Obviously you don't.
The same thing with polishes and fillers. You don't need to understand their chemical formulation to know how they work on the level of scratches and how they increase gloss.
Why would be this relevant? And what answer do you expect to get on such a generic question? Could and will any reasonable answer be true for all fillers and coatings? What particular products and what exact version/formulation of them are we talking about? What ambient temperature and humidity levels, and what amount of fillers, what kind of application are we talking about? Or are these specifics only important when you say something about a formulation of a particular product, but not when you're asking how - in general - this or that kind of products work?
As I've already explained, they will be filled by the coating.
How is that question relevant to anything said here? And again, what particular coating and future coatings, waxes or sealant are we talking about here? Or are you again expecting an answer that's true for every combination of them?
The (oversimplified) problem is that the primer polish is less concentrated, which in turn will obviously have a negative effect on the resulting bond, durability, etc, compared to the more concentrated coating. That's what I explained in my previous comment, too.
In the sense I explained, it is.
Then that's not a perfect finish. And as such those things that I said about perfect finishes do not apply to it. Instead those other things what I have said about non-perfect finishes are what applies to them.
I don't agree with that, but even if it would be so, I precisely defined what "perfect finish" means for the purposes of my explanation.
That's what I started my explanation with, and what I repeated multiple times.
The "key thing" is whatever you make the key thing. If you make "maximizing gloss" (including the durability of that) your key thing, then you'll have to sacrify clear coat. If you make "preserving clear coat" your key thing, then you've limited your options and you will only be able to achieve that much in the gloss and durability department that this self-imposed limitation allows you to.
That's like saying that whether the Sun rises on the East is all up to each persons experience.
Nobody said you shouldn't use them. I only explained what makes sense and what doesn't, and what the benefits and what the drawbacks are of using Essence this or that way.
).