This is The Lingo. It is something people use when they try to say bland obvious stuff while sounding like they are tech wizards that deserve a high wage. I know the pattern, I studied philosophy, where you also have some writers that express simple ideas with complex lingo, while you have others where the lingo is complex, but it is needed, because the thought is also complex. For the uninitiated telling the two apart can be hard.
In this case that just means: our landing page needs to convince more people to sign up without getting too bloated.
This means it implies a linear correlation between amount of content on the page and sign ups. More content, more signups. But not too much, otherwise it is bad again.
In essence it is a bad take on a probably real problem, expressed by a person that needs to hide behind the lingo.
That's an awfully cynical perspective, but these terms evolved because they're useful. No one is forcing us to speak them (although they are forcing us to hear them.)
I would rather refer to affordances than to "user-facing touchpoints", because that's a more specific abstraction aimed at, specifically, interactive elements whereas "touchpoints" is, to me, vague; does it refer, also, to the merely visual aspects which "touch" our retinas?
"Friction" is a metaphor, and there's nothing wrong with that! I imagine that one monitoring a conversion funnel would naturally ask "what's causing the members of this cohort to drop out of the flow?" Well, it's friction that challenges spatial progress, and spatial metaphors make good use of some underused cognitive hardware.
"Increase stickiness... but also keep it lean", though is, at worst, an oxymoron and, at best, lazy along the lines of "... just make it good and not bad."