No disrespect intended, but I don't think so - read on, please.
Well, here you are misquoting me. I don't disagree with you that it's often done, and that it's "efficient," but "efficient" is in the eye of the beholder. One could argue it's the easy way out of addressing things that could be addressed with improved technique.
I do understand what you're saying, and I don't agree. I'm being a little hard-a@#ed above but only for the purpose of making a point. Consider a car engine - an automobile designer could opt for a larger engine or take what is arguably an inefficient path and try to get more horsepower out of the current engine's size. Is one better than the other? No, and I'm trying to say that I respect adding size as a way of getting stronger. But I cannot abide by calling it "necessary". It's not necessary.
I play the piano and several other instruments; to get better, I practice. I don't consider honing technique "to no end" in any way bad - it's what I do in my chosen profession, and I see no reason not to take a similar approach to becoming stronger. One can also add size "to no end" and become a super-heavyweight lifter - that's another valid approach that is not "necessary."
Different strokes for different folks,
@Antti - that is all I'm suggesting here. One can choose to work on technique, or one can choose to add muscle, or one can choose to do both in whatever proportion one chooses. All those are valid choices and none is necessary to become stronger.
My own aim is to do a raw 400 lb. (182 kg) deadlift in the 65-70 year old age group and 66 kg weight class in a few years. G-d willing and the creek don't rise, I'm hoping to 172.5 kg (380 lbs.) next June at age 63, take a couple of years working on other things, and then get back into competition deadlifting when the next age bracket rolls around.
-S-