I fundamentally disagree with everything you said about value. At no point in my several years of economics training did I learn that value is derived from labor. Quite the opposite actually. The only time I heard that value was derived from labor was in philosophy of economics when covering Marx.

I also disagree with your premise "no other tradition maintains this precept". That is only because the vast majority of economists don't consider themselves part of a tradition. They just do economics research. There is a whole host of people who do research that would align with various Austrian viewpoints.

Please define how you are measuring the rigor of a result. Nevertheless, suppose I grant that this is true, you are assuming that the rigor of a result is the metric to prioritize. What is the value of a rigorous result without understanding e.g., precision?

Let me suppose the rigor of a result is measured by the generalizability of results. IE, if minimum wage is above market wages, unemployment will increase. This is a rigorous result under my supposed definition as it is widely generalizable. Why is that better to know than something less generalizable but more precise?

As far as knowledge goes, Non-Austrian economists call this friction. Models assume no friction to glean insights. All economists know that in the real world there is friction.