I find myself agreeing with these criticisms. There are several problems and unresolved questions I have about his framework, and I think the issue of subjectivity with many of these classifications is something that needs be ironed out. But... I do still find the video essay quite stimulating! Ah well. It's okay. I think the video must be hitting a sweet spot where the subject matter and concepts happen to be extremely interesting to me in particular, and so I wasn't disappointed that I see flaws in the specifics of the framework. So instead of walking away feeling that I got nothing, I rather enjoyed trying to ask myself questions about these issues and seeing if they could be resolved or if the framework could be modified. If you accept the concept of "implied player" that he uses, I find it's not so easy to say for sure whether or not some of these flaws that have been brought up can in fact be addressed somehow and fixed. There's a lot to be questions here, and potentially a lot of ways someone could take his framework and improve it. (Or perhaps it can't, I still have doubts in both directions)
So overall, I found the subject of "player inadequacy and how games propose to resolve them" to be an very engaging headspace to spend time in. Despite the various issues mentioned, this essay gave me more mental tools and structures I can use to think about it on my own, which was exciting. The author uses the phrase "not an answer, but a constructive way to talk about it" to describe his own work, and that describes how I feel about this whole matter. The video doesn't function as endpoint of the conversation to me, but rather one line of an ongoing conversation that someone else might branch off of.