Partially I agree.
Partially I feel that the "findings" remind me of those lines from horoscopes that everyone thinks applies to them. They're statements deliberately phrased to ensure most everyone agrees with them on the surface. No one's really saying "I want adventures to be difficult and time-consuming to build" - they're arguing about how much time is "time-consuming".
I can see what you're saying, but I think that you might be able to find actual preference buried in there.
"You like simplicity" means that there's not a lot of patience for pre-gaming or pre-prep. This means things like 4e's and 3e's crazy-detailed character creation had quickly diminishing returns, and 3e's "build characters and monsters exactly the same way" and 4e's "precisely balance this detailed encounter and make it interesting!" are not necessarily good ideas. The game doesn't need to be detailed with a tremendous amount of options to be fun.
"You see balance on a larger scale" means that encounter-based design a la 4e wasn't a great approach. Every class doesn't need to contribute equally in every single encounter, and HP and abilities can be depleted over the course of an adventure, not just within one encounter. While we don't want binary situations ("Thieves should avoid combat entirely!"), we do want situations where the character might be at a disadvantage ("Thieves are not going to shine in combat.")
"Easy-to-build Scenarios" indicates that the mechanics don't drive the play experience: we aren't enticed by high numbers or rolling dice, we're driven by the story we're telling, that's what pulls the game ahead, so making it easy to tell that story is important. Essentially, we tend toward being narrative, as a group.
"Flexibility in Rules" means that the 3e/4e approach of locking down precisely what PC's are capable of isn't as interesting as the earlier-e approach of using some DM judgement. We don't mind making active DM choices during play.
"You aren't edition warriors" means that there's not one true way to play for us, there's not one right choice of how to make the game. This is actually counter to 4e's "hit the way most people play" philosophy, and shows that there isn't one game to rule them all. Variety trumps consistency and the value you get from one consistent assumed ruleset.
...that's how I see the rubber meeting the road, here, anyway.