There is so much you are not getting here. I numbered points in your post so my explanation doesn't seem to be all over the place.

1. Time to triangle means how much time it takes to even get your engine up and running on a system. Not how much time it takes to build your game or clean up your code. 
2. From above, the bump doesn't come from being able to run run your engine on the hardware, it comes rather; from optimizing your code. This doesn't just mean having more efficient code, it means writing code that takes advantage of the specific hardware. Something that no multiplat game is doing right now.
3. Yes, and X86 means that a lot of the code as cross compatible. But Console architecture is very very very different from that of PCs. PCs basically brute force their way through everything. Thats because of the ridiculous amount of overhead in them that no matter how close to the metal they are, the fact that they stil run on an OS that must support legacy services means that they are always working with one hand tied behind their backs. Maybe I have already said this (or maybe i thought about it but didnt type it), think of consoles as formula one cars. Designed through and through for one purpose and one purpose alone. Then think of PCs as Bugatti Veyrons, with an option to strap a rocket to its back if you want.
4. Of the 18 active CUs in the PS4, only 6 of them allow for GPU compute. So every one that you use for GPU compute is one less you have to use for your graphics engine. 
5. Ignore them, devs say that kinda shit all the time. You need proof, just look at BF4, then look at KZ:SF and then infamous SS. Look at The Order, then wait and see the stuff that will blow your mind away in a few weeks at E3. Apparently 95% means different things for different devs. Besides, you also need to understand that every multiplat game you are seeing in this first year or so is noting but a direct port of the game running on a PC. Third party devs have not started making games specifically for the hardware in consoles. 
6. Short answer, read above. Not optimized for consoles. 

 I dont think that this gen console hardware is that specific, I think its very PC like. The biggest change being the unified memory and the 64 commands. 

Actually some of those "techheads" do have a consensus on this information and it's this ... The best 40nm AMD GPU at the GFLOPs per watt front is the 1GB edition Radeon HD 5870 so even if the latte did match it on that front with TDP of 25 watts the WII U would only at it's best case scenario have 362 GFlops. The catch is that lower end GPUs such as latte usually on average have a fair bit lower GFlops per watt compared to the higher end parts so it's very likely that it would end up at around 10 GFlops per watt which would make the WII U likely weigh in at about 250 GFlops. If it's anything we agree on it would be a RANGE. It's that the WII U most likely has less than 240 shaders!

We even had a developer here by the name of "Nyleveia" and he gave us a range of around 150 to 200 shaders. He basically confirmed that the WII U has LESS than 200 shaders.

Anthony's assertion isn't even wrong in the slightest sense of the word ... 

Some of the techheads have reached a consensus. The debate itself still rages on.

TC posting speculation as fact is misleading and just generally poor form.

Some of those "techheads" are actual techheads like Nyleveia, Pemalite, and myself ... The rest are a bunch of raging fanboys or haters from all sides. There's not much of a debate when we are the only ones around here with confirmed ranges or comprehensive theories based on other facts. TC has the right idea but it's incomplete and not totally speculation either. You really can't defy the laws of physics ...

There's a difference between a range and a specific number. Besides Nintendo, the only people who know exactly and for sure are devs under NDA.

I just don't think we should pretend to be positive when we're not.

Yes there is a difference between range and specific number but it is contrained at the maximum of 200 shaders. Nyleveia is positive about that but he couldn't give the actual number due to an NDA agreement so OP is more in the right rather than the wrong because if that number were different it would actually be lower rather than higher. 

curl-6 said:

That's another thing; how do we know for sure this Nyleveia was a dev, and even if he/she was, how do we know he/she was telling the truth?

I just think we should be absolutely sure before we go presenting graphs as fact.

It's really hard to make an argument defending the amount of functional units the latte has when it has to stand up against other tough assertions such as the laws of physics or real life examples of performance. Unless I'm seriously overlooking something in favour of the amount of functional units in latte such as revolutionary ALU designs or somethng entirely different such as a DSP with some powerful SIMD capabilities but all of those things lack some evidence as I doubt AMD makes anything other than microprocessors or GPU. 

You are right about being absolutely sure about something before presenting the graphs but alot of the discussions take place in a different community rather than the general public so I would rather see some disputes between other users about the graph's accuracy in question.