This is a pretty random set of responses that convince me you are not that widely read on these issues.The only guy that i know that takes such a view is paul davis, and he is a physicists.
David chalmers believe "EVERYTHING" has some element of primitive mentality.
Chalmers is nothing like an observer generaliser (he is panpsychic, not pansemiotic). Nozick was taking this approach. Davies endorses some important systems science tenets, like the need to model top-down causality, but is not yet taking the further step of generalising observers.
Don't make the mistake here that observer = consciousness. One is something particular found only in socialised human brains, the other is so general that it encompasses all possible varieties of observer~observed relationships.
Concerning your own apparent frame of reference, the whole reductionist vs realist debate in recent philosophical approaches to causality is not a useful way to dichotomise the argument. It is still fixated on atomism and Newtonianism so still conjures up the standard antithetical positions of dualism and platonism.
This is what I object to in Tooley, Lewis, Kim, Chalmers, et al. They are taking up valuable bandwidth in finding ways to preserve stale old thinking. Discussions people were earnestly having in the 1800s that should have long been consigned to the intellectual dustbin.
The fact that you are studying these guys and probably have never even read Peirce is telling.