I think I understand the impulse behind your comment, and in general I agree, but I feel even better when I can explain my work to the stakeholders in a language that they understand.
Doctors already tell you what they plan to do and even some details of how they plan to do it. I feel better when a mechanic can explain to me what they intend to do, because then I can judge their competence without waiting for them to butcher my car. The people renovating my house needed to explain some of what they intended to do, because otherwise how would I know that things were going OK? I say all this because I don't think we should always equate "professional" with "opaque". If you can't explain some aspect of what you're doing, then why do you do it and why should I pay for it?
Once we establish more trust, certainly I will delegate more of this responsibility to you. I won't ask as many questions. But where does this trust come from?
"Programmers who don't refactor (or write tests) simply aren't being professional. They don't need permission from their managers to write code which ensures their employer's future in the IT market - its implied!" I certainly don't agree with the first sentence; if someone can produce a steady stream of features without refactoring and tests, then they should do it. I agree in principle with the second sentence, but I refer you back to the examples earlier in this comment: when we have established trust, then the relationship becomes easier, but where does the trust come from?
Regarding the practice of continuous refactoring, it can't hurt to make that more explicit, so I'll look for a way to do that. Thank you for the suggestion.