Again, I think we've gone in circles on what the terms mean here. It is probably better to dig into what we are actually talking about. Depending on what aspect of 'authentic' one is leaning into it certainly might tilt more in the direction you are pointing to. But I do think what I am pointing to is a middle territory that is important and gets glossed over with dividing things this way. If we are using authentic to mean real or genuine, I would still say if the stakes are profound enough, even if your choice isn't informed, it is a genuine choice. Your decision, even if it wasn't a product of you reasoning through what option is likely to yield what result, still resulted in something of significant consequence. Getting on the plane and not getting on the plane (if the plane ends up crashing) would have been a genuine choice in my life, even if I had no way of knowing there was anything wrong with the plane. Arguably the process by which I arrived at my decision was less interesting and less a result of any significant deliberation (though even there it could have been the result of me wrestling with fear of flying issues). I am not saying there isn't a difference between that and between a more informed choice that also has significant consequences. But I see there being three basic types of choice: 1) meaningless (the GM decides what is behind the door or the mechanics decide regardless of what you choose), 2) meaningful (the choice is a real choice between two objective outcomes even if you don't have much information to go by), 3) informed and meaningful (you have more information helping you make a choice about which door to choose),
That is why I used the real world example of taking the bus versus driving to work. I think part of why authentic versus inauthentic choice the way it is being used here falls short for me (apart from deciphering what is meant by authentic), is you miss that. Again I am not saying load your adventures with doors A and B with something horrific that cannot be deciphered beyond one of them. I am saying you need that range, and to me, one of the things that makes it meaningful is that the GM wasn't playing tricks behind the scenes, or just deciding regardless of what I chose. And again, even if I don't know what is beyond the door, I make tons of little decisions leading up to the opening of the door that are more informed (by my experience, my characters personality, etc). So even the most reductive example (door A versus door B) is going to have a lot more going on in terms of choice than just "I pick door B".
That said, I do think you are pointing to another important distinction. Which is there is clearly a difference between the door A and B example and something more emotionally or morally weighty (like a character who has to choose between saving the President or his wife for example in a terrorism scenario, or a character who has to choose between loyalty to his friends or loyalty to the law). My point is just there is a spectrum of choices that are significant with different degrees of the player being informed about them (most are probably going to reside somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, many will be more malleable and subject to the players trying to discern more: in the Door A and B example, deciding to listen at the door might yield relevant information, but it might not if what aways is just a mechanical trap). My argument for including choices with less information is the way they can enhance excitement, surprise and suspense. And I don't think including such choices in any way makes a game more railroady or makes characters less able to have development (though I would say if the GM just flat out says "nothing the players can do yields any information, no matter what" then you are getting into railroad territory).
For me personally a good campaign has a mixture of choices type 2 and 3.