If you already know that there is a tactic in the position your entire frame of reference changes. Which is actually why puzzle composition is treated very differently from actually playing, and a lot of famous composers are not particularly strong players.
This is why I feel it compares well to coding competitions. It looks so similar, but the mindset is very different. And only looking at tactics, just like only looking at coding as a game problem is I think why it may damage your performance at work.
At lower levels like where I'm at, players are prone to mistakes and blunders, so having a good eye for tactics allows you to take advantage of those moments in the game as well as prevent yourself from getting into a bad situation.
But at elite levels, tactics have less importance (as he says in the video he estimates it drops to 50%) as every player at that level is extremely solid.
"Chess problem" is a term of art that refers to an artificial composed position with a unique solution that is constructed to both be a challenge to the solver and have aesthetic value. They often have constraints on the solution such as that White must deliver checkmate in two moves (three ply). This is what I assume you're referring to.
A position from an actual game (or that easily could have been) that demonstrates a tactic (or combination of them) is generally known as a "chess puzzle", largely because the term "chess problem" was already squatted on.
Somewhere in between the two is the "study", which is a constructed position, less artificial than a chess problem but still very carefully made to have a unique solution that walks a tightrope and generally requires absolutely exact calculation rather than working by general tactical principles.
From where people assert so confidently such nonsense? Chess is 90% tactics at the under 1800 Elo level or so. At the 2700+ level? No way.