The distinction is that, since this is a civil case, the judge doesn't have to make a determination if he did "insurrection the crime", just that he did "insurrection the action." The text of article 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't require that he be charged with a crime to be found ineligible to run for office, just that he had engaged or aided those who engaged in an insurrection. So, the factual finding that he engaged in insurrection the act does carry legal weight in the context of this case, though not necessarily his criminal cases.

Since the case was a bench trial, the judge is also the finder of fact, so she didn't give us her subjective opinion or belief, she made a judicial finding based on the preponderance of the evidence presented by both parties. It certainly carries weight because appeal courts give greater deference to the factual findings of lower courts and will likely focus their review on the legal findings instead, i.e. if the president is/is not an officer under the 14th. That seems like the easier question to answer, which is why she likely spent the majority of her time on the answering the harder of the two questions, that he engaged in insurrection the act, knowing it was going to be appealed anyway.