Grampy_Bone I don't understand you. Or, to be more precise, neither you, nor other tabletoppers.
You refer to the encounter design guide. Who wrote it, why, and for whom? What is the goal of such (and not some other) distribution of encounters? Which experiences do DMs who use this guide try to achieve?
Is it to keep the TT game lighthearted and fun? Will it work for an adversarial DM whose goal is to make Dark Souls out of the tabletop campaign? Do such DMs still exist anywhere west of the Oder?
I don't know. If you do, I will appreciate the explanation.
I know (by osmosis, if you want) that Owlcat Games employees run regular weekly TT sessions for every new game. I know that some of the higher-ups are their DMs, maybe even Mishulin himself. Logically, it means that they have very stable and reliable parties, because people physically work right there (or they
did, but it's a different story). It is probably voluntarily, but maybe not exactly; if an employee from the designing team does not regularly play the game s/he is designing, that's odd.
As a result, maybe Owlcat can afford much more adversarial campaigns than the guides suggest. The guides are from Paizo, after all, and with all due respect, they have a lot of browney points in favour of "modern audiences" (TM). Also, there is an achievement called "Sadistic Game Design"—don't you think it's there for a reason?
TL;DR: While I agree that Owlcat's design does not follow the encounter guide, I doubt that applying the guide to a computer game would have improved the game.