I suspect that they are busy not only collating the feedback from here but analysing all the metadata they are getting from people playing - like how often they are dying in particular encounters, who's dying where, how theyre dying, what companions theyre using most/least, how long it takes them to get to level 4, which quests are missed by most.
And of course all the bug reports / crash reports.
So likely a lot of work going on in the background with one team looking at bugs/stability and a lot of people trying to make sense of all the feedback both automatic and player provided.
My problem with this is that the data points you listed are what you look at when you're trying to polish a product. Tweaking a specific combat difficulty is sorta pointless if there remains *significant* work to be done on the underlying mechanics. Using the metadata you mentioned is like choosing number of cupholders in a vehicle before even knowing whether it will be a car or a truck. For example, if Larian listens to the feedback and massively reduces the amount of surfaces and barrels, and returns to closer 5e stat blocks and mechanics, all that metadata will be useless.
Bug reports still useful, the top priority has to be that game runs at all. But after that...
