Yes, obsession. There are different ways to describe the required loop compensation, just that Americans obsessively prefer arguing poles and zeros.
The datasheet is such an example. Arguing with poles and zeros over almost one page but beating around the bush and not giving the transfer function, only fragments. Complete with the typical American phrases about "setting the pole-zero". And at the end of one page of arguing the datasheet just gives two simple equations to calculate Rc and Cc, derived not the least from using rules of thumb (e.g. 1/10 of the switching function). But great that we talked about poles and zeros.
And this is typical for US literature. Somehow they prefer to come up with poles and zeros. And the second US specialty is arguing with them and arguing about moving poles and zeros around in the s-plane. Instead of giving the transfer function they like to argue with artifacts of the transfer function. They just can't help it.
BTW if you look up my previous posts you'll find that I am one of those engineers disagreeing with Dave's "no one needs math" approach. But I am also one of those engineers who think there is no point arguing poles and zeros just because you are obsessed with them.