OP applies a wrong model in their analysis of models. They say the JS code is the reality and you can have a perfect or an imperfect model of such reality. I'd

OP applies a wrong model in their analysis of models. They say the JS code is the reality and you can have a perfect or an imperfect model of such reality. I'd say the reality in this context is this triad: "input -> output". The input, the arrow, and the output. Thus, the code is not part of the reality, but just the model of that arrow. The code is (an inherently imperfect) description of how a real input is to be transformed into a real output, an artificial text in an artificial language that allows a human programmer to make any progress whatsoever. What follows is that OP proposes that a model of the model (i.e. their understanding of their JS code) can be imperfect or it better be perfect. In the latter case it calls it "a solid foundation", which introduces extra mental category for no benefit. This can be said simpler: for the reality, use directly the model that fits in your head. If it doesn't fit in, make more room for it by "reading the docs on type coercion and truthy values". Or, drop it into the nearest trashcan and search for a smaller model that would fit in comfortably. But do not fall into the local minimum where you develop an imperfect model of an imperfect model of the reality and call it a day.