Your skillset appears to mostly consist of glibly repeating vague mantras and being abusive. Also incorrectly reasoning from quotes.
The skill you could do with developing is logical reasoning.
You don't seem to understand what a 1-ply analysis is. The position I posted showed analysis lines to many moves and a search depth of 26. That is NOT a 1 ply analysis. Note also, that you seem to forget that a 1-ply analysis generates a new set of positions without 1-ply analysis. At the extremes of an incomplete analysis tree, you always have a set of positions that do not have a 1-ply analysis. If every position has a 1-ply analysis, the analysis is complete, contrary to your fanatical belief.
The point was that the lines Stockfish was analysing in my example were the most extreme example of irrelevant, inferior lines possible. The idea that it would fail to permanently prune such lines but prune some other type of line is, to an intelligent person, obviously absurd.
One possibility you miss is that Stockfish can do its analysis, pruning low priority (or even strictly inferior, like in my example) lines, but later, when there is nothing better to do analyse those lines. That is what happens in my example, and that is what happens at every leaf node in the hypothetical end.
It is an interesting discovery that Stockfish does this even when it has categorically solved a problem - it has found the shortest mate, proved that there are no other alternative mates, and yet continues to analyse inferior lines. Because it can, and it has nothing better to do.
In our hypothetical case where Stockfish has no problems with computational resources, it does the same at every position in the analysis tree, each one being in the hash table so it is found if it is reached by transposition.
Do I need to tell you a third time that chess has a finite number of legal positions?
So what.
This has nothing to do with Stockfish looking at all possible moves in the search. Does it....
I don't know what StockFish currently does and how. But I do know I would program every chess engine - and I would be massively surprised if it isn't done already - to have a thread (threads) running doing a full tree search on the chance it strikes gold. Even if just running in the background as a garbage collector on 1% of CPU-time. When quantum computing gets fast enough (assuming it can) I would delete all the other code. The point is that there is a balance between the required complexity of the software and CPU speed plus memory. In the last century russian infomation theorists were considered brilliant in designing algorithms which they needed for instance in their space rockets since their computers were slow compared to those in the west.