As I alluded to in one of my earliest posts on this juggernaut of a thread, part of the problem seems to be not distinguishing between "IS" and "is EQUAL TO." For instance, the net work done on a point particle IS the line integral of the force component in the direction of motion along the trajectory of the particle. Similarly the kinetic energy of a point particle IS one half its mass times the square of its speed. These are nothing more than definitions. They do not involve or imply any physics whatsoever. Calculations of either the net work done on a particle or its kinetic energy are exercises in arithmetic, not physics.
On the other hand, it is simple to show (via Newton's Second law) that the net work done on a point particle along any section of its trajectory is EQUAL TO the resulting change in the particle's kinetic energy. THAT'S physics. It's what makes calculating net work and kinetic energy *potentially* interesting.
Even though we write
W_net = delta K
we should not read that as "net work IS the change in the kinetic energy," but rather as "(under circumstances that justify the physics) net work is EQUAL TO the change in kinetic energy.
This may sound like nitpicking (it may even *be* nitpicking!), but the result of not *understanding* that nit is to say things like "the buoyant force on an object IS the weight of the fluid that it displaces" rather than "(under circumstances that justify the physics) the buoyant force on an object is EQUAL TO the weight of the fluid that it displaces." Those circumstances include the fluid being in hydrostatic equilibrium and the object being in direct contact with the fluid at every point on its surface that is lower in elevation than the top surface of the fluid.