

It is solid logic, as long as you’re only utilizing heat that would have been produced anyway, independent of whether it’s used productively or not. It goes bad if you start justifying inefficient hardware for longer than you otherwise would have because of it.
For electric heating, you basically only have two options, heat pumps and resistive. Within just that comparison, 100% is the lower limit.
If you want to compare it to other types of heating, efficiency becomes much harder to measure, because the inputs can differ.
If you’re using electricity generated by burning fossil fuels it’s simple enough, but the “100% efficient” resistive heating loses again because you could just burn the same fossil fuels in your home to heat it directly which is much more efficient.
If you’re using renewable power, then “efficiency” kinda becomes meaningless because you’re using entirely different resources to produce the heat, so you can only try to abstract it by using either money or environmental impact per unit of heat as a stand-in. I don’t have the numbers on it right now so correct me if I’m wrong, but I think resistive heating would actually be more expensive than fossil-fuel based heating, generally speaking - there’s a reason that it’s not really a wide-spread thing for heating whole homes.
So unless I’m wrong on something here, resistive heating is really not going to be among the most efficient options, unless you specifically only look at environmental impact and are using regenerative sources for it. But even then, the heat pump just wins by miles.