There is a reason why it seems to be some “redundancy”. Quite a few believe that these sentences were originally applied to Chinese Chess (象棋) instead of Weiqi
Here is the page of the oldest known source of these sentences (they originally were numbered for the 1 word in the sentence, like 一不得貪勝 二入界宜緩, etc. On the right side of the image is about weiqi, on the left side is Chinese Chess, and these sentences are listed on the left side) called 新編纂圖增類群書類要事林廣記 in its “extended” version, printed in 1330s (early 14th century), and although the main body of works likely compiled in the late 13th century (late Song dynasty to early Yuan Dynasty) called 事林廣記. We only started to see these been transcribed and compiled in the Ming Dynasty Go books (early 15th century), but they also appeared in Chinese Chess books at the same time. And a lot of the “extended versions” might be compiled in later time than the original main body of works. However, since the original works were a “encyclopedia” type of book, they were compilations of earlier works already, hence, the origin of these sentences are still largely unknown. (hence, it is still possible that someone wrote some original works for weiqi, or even other type of strategy board games, and got converted/compiled for Chinese Chess, and then due to the popularity and usefulness of the encyclopedia, that version became wide spread)
Personally, since I play Chinese Chess and Weiqi, these sentences make a lot more sense in the context of Chinese Chess. For 4, 5, and 6, they decribe different kinds of “sacrifices”, one is sacrifice for getting “sente/inititive” not when pieces or the whole board situations are critical, likely in early game. The sacrfice small for big, are very literal, since Chinese Chess pieces like Chess pieces have different “values”, hence you sacrifice based on the value of the pieces (which doesn’t technically existed in Go, unless we are talking about groups of stones), and finally sacrifice when there is danger, close to checkmate, is about in late game phase, when you need to escape, you sacrifice regardless of sente or piece value, since there is one piece, the king, absoulutely cannot die.
If you put this in the Chinese Chess context, the #8 also makes more sense, since in Chinese Chess, pieces move, but you also need to consider the pieces interactions and keep each other in check and safe, hence, the first thing when a piece moved, you check whether the cooperations/correlations between pieces changed or not.
Over all though, the “interpretations” of these sentences had been done by many over the centuries, and they are not always consistent with each other. And whether we want to adapt them to suite the context of Go/baduk/weiqi is up to us (and whether to include weiqi specific terms), but I feel we need to make them more of a high level conceptual ideas, than concrete examples.
(Also, the original sentences are all in the format of 2-2 structure for the 4 words in each sentence, in contrast, or object/subject, etc. it might be nice to include this duality in the translation)