Its a good fantasy RPG, but it has not much to do with DnD.
Like fine, go for another take on DOS. It was a great game. It really was. But dont make a DnD game if you do not want to make a DnD game.
Just see Kingmaker. Pathfinder is way more complex than dnd5e. they had to make adjustments. Invisibility and flying work differently, flanking works differently. But overall, that game is clearly a PC adaptation of the pen and paper game. The focus is on the pathfinder rules, and when necessary, they diviated. In BG3 right now the DnD Rules are a rough shape of you characters, but many important mechanics are DOS mechanics, not DnD mechanics.
I completely disagree with you here. I played BG3 with the PHB in my hand comparing the rules and they did not change the rules that much. Aside from the cantrips and the disengage action, I honestly don't see that many changes that are relevant. Furthermore, I think that BG3 is one of the best implementations of D&D rules for video games. For example, compare Neverwinter Nights with BG3, BG3 implements D&D way more precisely. Even PF:K, which I have played extensively (600hrs), they do change a lot of rules, you mentioned some but there are more, such as no favorite class bonuses, you can't dismiss spells, skills are very limited, and so on and so forth. Not to mention that these games are RtwP, not how D&D is meant to be played. The only game that I would say that is a better adaptation than BG3 is the ToEE.
While I agree that some adaptations should be reworked, such as cantrips and the Jump action, I think that many opinions on this forum are contaminated with D:OS II. People played it and now they are looking for signs of D:OS II everywhere. In other words, people are just being nitpicking because compared to other games, BG3 is not a bad adaptation of D&D at all. I haven't played D:OS II, maybe that is why I don't see that many changes to the D&D ruleset (in which I have some experience).