Hey jgsugden! As I wrote this is not intended to be the only way of interpreting it. It is meant to be a summary of this thread.
If you call something a summary, but only present one side of the discussion when there was disagreement as to how something should work, you're not providing a real summary - you're providing only a partial biased view.
What Jeremy Crawford says is that "A DM is free to allow additional effects". Of course, this is something a DM can always do. Unfortunately, the description of Phantasmal Force is very vague. And there are only a few answers of the game designers that clearly give an insight into the RAI. Those are actually the ones I linked in my summary. But I wouldn't add the one you stated to them, because he just said that "it's okay, when you allow more than the rules say".
Don't use quotes to your interpretation of his words... unless I missed him saying those words. Did I? Are those words in a post somewhere by him? That would surprise me as it does not appear to be what he meant. To me, it appears he means that illusions are subjective and hard to provide specific rules to adjudicate, so a DM should be free to apply additional effects where it makes sense for the perceived phantasm illusion.
Most important: Phantasmal Force is an illusion and therefore cannot force a creature physically. Otherwise it would be even more powerful than spells like "Hold Person/Beast/Monster". You just need to find a way to shackle any creature with something indestructible. Binding a dragon's wings with illusionary chains? I don't think that this is intended with a 3rd level spell. And most of the replies agreed to this interpretation (not everybody though).
2nd level spell, not 3rd. And there is a lot of disagreement across the various PF threads on this type of point. Regardless, I agree that PF chains would not prevent a creature being bound by them to be forced to move by a pushing effect, but I do not agree that a creature that is 'bound' to the ground by PF chains would be able to move because they would believe they could not - the phantasm is in the mind and someone convinced they can't do something can prevent themselves from doing it.
Treat this spell as you wish to. It's your choice. In most cases, nobody will be able to prove your interpretation wrong. But this thread was a try to find one that is consistent with the wording of the RAW and what is consistent in analogy to other spells.
And that is why I objected to you characterizing certain views as a summary of the thread when the views are very much not settled.
You may wish to look at what is different in the language of this spell and the language in some of the other illusion spells. Phantasmal force is a very different illusion. It exists entirely in the mind. The being subjected to it is so convinced of the truth of it that they'll justify things inconsistent with it. "The target rationalizes
any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." There is no equivocation in that language. That creature bound to the ground by illusory chains might get pushed 10 feet... which couldn't happen when they're bound to the ground, right? Does that end the illusion? Until the target makes that check/save or the duration ends, the spell is in place. Specifically, the spell says the spell continues. They might believe the chains that attach to the floor broke... or that the chains reattached in a new location after releasing from the ground. That is up to the DM and the players.
This is a powerful 2nd level spell. More powerful than hold monster? In some ways, yes. In others, no. There are a lot of lower level spells that can be more powerful than higher level spells in certain situations.