This exactly.
@Oofta : I had basically this exact thought as I was reading through your previous example, and I had it again reading this new one.
You are, if anything, doing the exact process I laid out earlier, just you've had the first few steps done for you by the playtest designers, and are using a mix of statistical reasoning (static values skepticism) and thought experiment to examine it. You have determined, through these things, that the rules in question
function badly, and thus should be rewritten.
You are, very directly, seeking to make the game
more balanced.
But the conclusion you thus draw--that because these two rules are bad, ALL additional rules must be bad--is not warranted by the data you've gathered. You have convinced me, at least, that Hiding as a condition and other playtest rules are badly made, and I will give feedback as such when I'm able. You have not, as a consequence, convinced me that the reason for these things is a bad reason; merely that these efforts toward it were unsound.
Trepanning, exorcism, and solitary confinement as a solution to mental health issues were all unsound practices; that does not mean mental health is not a valid concern for doctors to examine, nor that we should abandon our efforts to address mental health. It simply means that our early efforts were poor ones.