Ok, I didn't dispute any of your facts though. Everything I disputed was your opinion. Perhaps you didn't read my response? For instance the link you provided about rolling against a DC presents an opinion, not a fact. It may use some facts in the article, but the overall thrust is an opinion piece. If anything empirical evidence easily confirms roleplaying is not dead and is alive and well in many a d20 based game. Thus, I disagreed with that opinion.
Also, the link to bounded accuracy you provided does not substantiate your claim. It in fact contradicts it. Those pesky facts! This is basically the conclusion of the link you posted:
"Notice that most of this doesn't actually put limits on players. It actually puts limits on the developers when designing content the players can use. The standardization of player attack bonuses allows them to anticipate the bonus range any character can put out at a given level, regardless of class. This allows them to design monsters which have ACs which alter the probability of a hit based on PC. Rather than probability being rapidly pushed to 0% or 100%, the monster becomes viable for use against a much wider range of PCs. By having limits to player AC that are not tied to level, they can change the hit rate for monsters by adjusting only their attack bonuses. Because the two things are no longer tied together, it is now possible to have monsters that always hit and always get hit, always hit but rarely get hit, rarely hit but always get hit, or rarely hit or get hit, as well as anything within those four extremes. Finally, the whole point of all of this was to make lesser enemies still useful in larger numbers at higher levels, and powerful enemies still survivable at lower levels. (Survivable is not the same as defeat-able. TPKs still happen.) That means you no longer need to have special tier-balanced versions of each monsters, or special minion monsters, you can just use a higher CR monster to present extra challenges, or throw a whole bunch of lower CR monsters to make up a total CR equal to one big monster."
That doesn't match with your statement: "...achieved by buffing characters (HP & Proficiency) while nerfing monsters (AC & HP)."
Since you actually responded to less than half of what I wrote then is it safe for me to assume the rest of the items I listed meet the "interesting and innovative" requirement of your original statement I responded to?
