I basically agree with what you say above... sorry for the confusion.
Of course, I never wanted to imply that anatta was non-essential... just that when it's done its purpose, then that's the time to move on with the practice. It's only the beginning. Paticca samuppada, for example, has nothing to do with "self," "no self," nor even "not self." It's a map pointing the way out of suffering.
The first link, ignorance, I think strictly has to do with the four noble truths. (Though it can seem more than that, that's really papañca, or a diffusion.) The 4NT has nothing to do with "self" either. "Self" might be a part of that ignorance (a sankhara), but it's only one part. I think it's really the easy part to get rid of, at a gross level... but of course there's still something that seems tenacious, but that shouldn't be viewed
as a "self" in my opinion.
Sometimes I get the impression some people misunderstand (or are complacent) about what "anatta" is for, or what that implies. They seem to use it as a crutch. Some seem to use it in a nihilistic way, or their practices seem to be annihilationistic. (I.e., "I can make this 'self' go away with the jhanas! [sic]." Which is a bit silly, since it isn't to be viewed as a 'self' in the first place.) I thought I would shake that up a bit... I'm done with it for now.