I think that any response to this question would just be a matter of taste. It's hard to say anything objective in the way of one model being more useful than another. I would recommend abandoning the thought that there is a most useful model. Instead, read about these three models, and about any other models you find, looking only to understand why the authors decided that their model represents how math should be taught or learned. Then from this understanding, form your own model of how to teach mathematics. I think that you can safely disregard these models as immutable rules, but instead think of them only as scaffolding to build your own philosophy on teaching mathematics.
Something does need to be said in support of designing models like these in the first place, though. Teaching feels very natural to some people, and to these people models like these feel silly, like a formalization of how to eat a sandwich. But teaching doesn't come so naturally to everyone. Or at the very least not everyone has developed a coherent philosophy of how to teach yet. I think this is especially true of some early-career mathematics educators, or of math education students who have so far thought about teaching mathematics very little in their lives. Having models like these provide scaffolding, a jumping-off point, for people like this to begin developing their own thoughts on teaching. They provide a solid base to stand on while maturing as a mathematics teacher.