My apologies if this has been discussed to death in the past, but what is the current feeling amongst solvers about uniqueness strategies (such as uniqueness rectangles, and BUG)?

I must confess that I do not like these strategies, and in some ways they feel "wrong".

When one is using "standard" strategies, including the various "wings", "chains" and "fishes", then really you are just applying the basic Sudoku rule in more-or-less sophisticated ways. You are presented simply with a grid, and you analyse it until you find the solution array that fits it. If it turns out that there is no solution, or multiple solutions, then you curse the compiler (or perhaps feel superior), but you accept that there are such things as human error and typos.

With uniqueness strategies, though, there is another element. You are assuming that the puzzle is correct, in the sense that there is a unique solution, and then using this assumption to eliminate possibilities and so find this solution. You are relying on the infallibility of the puzzle compiler. This is a different kind of logic from the standard strategies - a different level of meta-logic really. For one thing, if the puzzle actually was wrong, then the technique would be invalid and might lead to errors - you might think you had found a solution when you hadn't.

I cannot decide whether I dislike these strategies more or less than using trial-and-error (which is, of course, yet a different form of logic - though perhaps more closely related to the "standard" strategies than the other).