There are several interrelated questions to which I don't have preformulated answers so I'm going to wing it.
First I don't necessarily see a distinction between nature and objects. I'm not sure what "nature" is really, except some left over idea from the American Transcendentalists? But after all, the hut at Walden was within a short walk to town and he accepted many visitors so he hardly was a hermit in Chinese mountains.
I don't see the need to have so-called nature in haiku at all. Sometimes it's nice to have a seasonal reference if appropriate, but that's because of temporality and larger scope, not because it's natural. Kigo after all were many steps removed from nature in any idealized sense because there were saijikis that are all about literary convention and allusion. And some of these connections to modern readers seem quite arcane so saijikis are actually necessary or footnotes to explain what was taken to be a naturalized phenomenon.
What strikes me as strange is when a kigo like first line is then followed by something that is all about the subjectivity of the writer and then called haiku. That just doesn't make sense to me. It seems a fundamental misunderstanding of how haiku conventions have developed in modern English or Western haiku.
The question of subjectivity or consciousness in haiku is very bit and tangled. I have learned from another discussion that there is a tendency toward more explicit displays of particularly the emotions because of a tanka-esque influence on recent haiku. I haven't digested the implications of that. It seems to me that making subjectivity into an object for the reader's consumption might be problematic. But this refers to the above discussion about the difference between subjectivity as projected versus subject-object blending or blurring.
As to senryu, I do have a distinction that I carry around in my head, but that's baggage from being a reader of Japanese early modern haikai, not anything I apply very often. If you look at Issa's corpus, I think there's an argument to be made that a large number of his haiku have more in common with senryu.
Perhaps if there's a poem, kigo or not, that seems to have as its sole purpose a satirical aim, I would call it senryu, but it's just using a fancy and borrowed Japanese expression that isn't really binding or necessary.
There is a larger problem here that's just endemic to many aspects of Western language haiku. It's a borrowed form from a highly developed and often insular culture. So even the word "form" doesn't really apply. In Japanese we don't even have what is translated as syllables. They are onji, sound units, very brief, not replicable in English certainly where syllables have varying lengths and also have stress or not. We have just adopted for the most part 3 lines, though lots of people are breaking even that convention. There's no intrinsic relationship between 3 lines and 17 onji. And though that may not be a big deal to note, the important word is "intrinsic." Just like "naturalized" it implies that there are cultural, hence ideological components at work to appropriate, transform, and yet present as if normative and natural. Lots of people take up art forms without exploring how these things came into being or what the implications are.
What's to be done is to actually examine what appears to be normative and natural. And then, in echo of your guy Lenin, to take a step farther and see what the ideological implications are. Only then can you understand how your writing participates in a larger context.
The best example I have at the moment for this comes from contemporary poetry, not specifically haikai. If you take the first person lyric poem and treat it as a kind of genre, there are many implications that writers of the genre tend to overlook. For instance, it participates in and reinforces certain notions of individuality that seem naturalized but are really ideological products. A whole set of beliefs emerge without too much scratching of the surface: a centered subject, complete with self-willed identity and agency, valuable in its own right and similarly self-determining. There are so many critiques of that kind of subjectivity that it is almost embarrassing to hear hear a first person lyric poem that naively presents itself as just what poets do.