While most of your discussions of the story and narrative elements here are sound, I feel like it shows that you've been browsing the story discussion and data-mining threads on the side as well, and I'm concerned that that's colouring your perspective on the actual writing and conveyance of the game itself (you used a handful of terms and terminology that don't show up anywhere in game, that people have only picked out from deeper mining).
While I've been paying attention to the data mining and ongoing discussions, most of this is present within the game itself, in my humble opinion. Of course, 'Daisy' is a datamined term, but even then, there are multiple clues that Daisy and the tadpole--and therefore, whatever is behind the Absolute--are separate entities. Such as the tadpole reacting violently whenever he/she appears. Now, if I were to say something about the Chancellor at Waukeen's Rest and Desire, that would be very much informed by datamining. The game intentionally muddies the waters and tries to misdirect you with unreliable characters, and I know this for a fact because of instances like the Lae'zel example I posted. There's also a scene in the third dream where the MC can both accuse Daisy of being the tadpole and say the tadpole wants to hurt him/her. Extrapolating meaning from subtext is the heart of discussion of any form of literature, so I'm not sure I agree with your conveyance issues (outside of bugs and the like that prevent certain narrative triggers). As long as it can be supported by the text--and so far most of my observations can be supported by the text, at least as far as I'm aware--the amount of time fine tuning these observations through discussion is ultimately irrelevant. And I could be wrong, of course, and if I am and the decision doesn't make sense given everything shown so far within the first act, that can undeniably be attributed to bad writing and poor conveyance.
For myself, personal, I can't agree with you on the calibre or quality of the writing as it's presented in game; I find it tacky and ham-fisted, and not really compelling at all. It uses far too many overly cliched elements, and a lot of cheap tropes to do the work of proper story-telling.
That's fair. I don't necessarily mind clichés and overused tropes if they're done well. Dragon Age: Origins is a very unoriginal game, but it handles all of its well-worn tropes with a comforting, competently executed familiarity. Most games have a hard time justifying the MC as leader, so that's something I generally just suspend my disbelief over. I'm currently playing through the original Baldur's Gate, and it's quite the tonally dissonant romp with a lot of common fantasy tropes as well, but as someone who loves books like David Eddings
The Belgariad, that can also serve as a strength. Baldur's Gate III goes for more of a blockbluster style with its characters (they remind me of Marvel characters in a lot of ways), but while the style is glitzier, they're still grounded in enough minute details to feel real. If they lean into the strengths of the style and their characters they'll be a lot of fun, I think, although it's hard to say for sure until we see the second and third act (and Larian does not have a great track record with their second and third acts, imo, which is a little concerning). I do understand why people find this style unappealing, however. Offsetting the current companions with more 'mundane' companions would solve a lot of these complaints.
I still cannot really understand why or how anyone could possibly like Shadowheart, to be honest... but many people seem to. Mostly people who know all about her underlying hidden back-story and retroactively assign a great deal of sympathy for her as a result... but from my perspective, that's not what's presented in the game.
Honestly, some of what I've seen in the datamining does make me like Shadowheart a little bit less. But most of what I like about her stems from what I've seen in the game (put in about 100 hours), as well as the fact that I'm just very familiar with signs of religious trauma, having grown up in a religious household. And while the forgotten realms is not earth, a lot of what I'm seeing in Shadowheart's character (mind wiped, paranoid, standoffish, etc., etc.) fall in line with my own personal experiences, so I can't help but gravitate toward her. And I think her VA is exceptional, and exceptional VA work can transcend the quality of writing--just look at Commander Shepard, who could easily have been an awful milquetoast military hero/deranged lunatic with too much power if not for Jennifer Hale's nuanced work (and Meer eventually, although I thought it took him a while longer to grow into the role).
I think the one slight thing I disagree with is not letting us have influence over the companions. I do think we should be able to push them either direction since personally I find characters who stay the same or don't grow (for good or ill) boring and what would be the point in some of the replayability if their outcome is always the same?
Of course. And given Astarion's popularity, I could see Larian being flexible with his arc. That said, I'd prefer it if some, not all, character were given redemption/corruption arcs. With Astarion I'd rather his arc involved becoming a vampire lord/being given back to Cazador/betraying you and dying (again) brutally. Haha. Still plenty of room for variation without necessarily including redemption. But I'm sure opinions vary.
