The purpose of EA is largely for them to experiment to see what works and what doesn't in the context of the video game they are making. If you wan't to convince them to make changes, you'll have a better chance by showing how particular game experiences would be improved, rather than engaging in statistical analysis of a ruleset that doesn't actually cover all the elements of their game.
That's how this thread started out - by pointing out that Larian's "simple change" breaks a ton of features and spells in the game. When you break a ton of features and spells, that makes the game experience worse because there are fewer options which are effective for combat. Fewer options leads to repetitive, boring gameplay.
The same goes for many of their other changes: the changes to increase HP and lower AC have made Attack Rolls better, but things which require saving throws are relatively worse because enemy saving throws remain the same. Spells which target HP and AoE spells are also relatively worse, because they are less effective due to higher HP and unchanged enemy saving throws. That reduces the options effective for combat, which leads to repetitive, boring gameplay.
It's the same thing with many other changes they've made - they lead to more repetitive gameplay than there would be without the change.
Don't use the "you just want a totally RAW experience" strawman. You won't find many people who are demanding a 1:1 completely pure no rules tweaked at all in any way game mode. That's just false and shows you are not paying any attention to the actual arguments.
Larian might have changed things which in their opinion did not make for a good videogame. But a lot of their changes are objectively making for a worse videogame, because their changes have reduced the number of options which are effective, compared to the tabletop game. This is NOT a case of the rules being too difficult to translate to a videogame.