This is a completely obvious conclusion with an unexpected definition of "effort" to justify a click-bait title.

Except that the conclusion is wrong because you need tolerance. A bridge is designed to tolerate a certain weight, then you factor in some large tolerance for special circumstances, the same is true of effort.

You put more effort into your team presentation just in case there are guests. You cannot suddenly have a better presentation instantaneously when you arrive and see the CTO. In sports, such as bouldering, you will grip a hold slightly harder than strictly required in case you suddenly slip or just to easily accommodate the dynamics necessary as you shift your weight without requiring ultra precision which is a different form of effort.

The additional effort you expend is based on your estimation of the risk. As you master whatever skill it is, then you are better able to estimate the risks and the need or lack thereof for additional effort. Novices expend more effort than masters because they cannot gauge the need, but they will also make more mistakes by correctly guessing the correct effort but not accommodating for the risk.

The appropriate (over)effort is never 0 because there is always some context dependent risk.

Right?

Such a clear fallacy of definition in the opening paragraphs that it renders the rest of the article a pointless read.

Yes, if you arbitrarily redefine terms you can reach arbitrary conclusions.