But we covered that with the bluffs being struck by waves. You apparently agreed that it was the coherent action of the water than broke the bluffs, but also somehow disagreed that the relation existed absent some observer.

This makes about as much sense to me as saying, "Well, of course the tree that falls in the forest makes no sound if nobody is around to hear it; and yet of course it does make a sound; therefore someone must have heard it."

Most of your perspective makes a good deal of sense to me, but not this part.

Sometimes it is the identity of a thing that matters; sometimes the configuration; usually both.

You seem to drop an observer into this as a necessary part of configuration mattering, but one could do the same thing for anything at all: if nobody is there to observe it, is there really any difference between a black hole, a neutron, and a swan?