It's good to see a blog which is trying to arrive at the essence of Agile by removing the clutter of jargon.

The trouble with definitions of agile which skip the aspect of "multiple teams working in cohesion towards a common goal" leaving it open for interpretation, will be vague and its very easy to make anything seem correct by making it vague!! On the contrary, including the notion of teams will cause the definition to be overly complex.

Your definition of agile, although matches the dictionary definition of Agile , it's a bit too broad to fully capture the essence of Agile when applied to constructive activities which involve multi-team efforts (software development at large enterprises being a prime candidate) if that was your intention.

For example, monkeys are fairly agile , and so are ants and bees. However, the agility of a group of monkeys when reacting to proximity to lions vs competing for resources leads to far different results if the goal is the common good of the group.The agility of Ants and Bees (even with teams split as workers and protector ) is more exemplary.

I have seen this "creating and reacting to change fast" being used almost as a weapon in cross functional teams with negative results since the notion of "team cohesion" was open to interpretation and generally the ones with higher designation win these "react to change" contest.