Fair enough. Thanks for answering.As a personal rule, I like narratives in games, but not in real life. I want to know what's actually going on, and what happened before, rather than assuming "this makes the most sense." And to be sure, sometimes the latter is the best we can do (and on occasion, the inference even turns out to be right), but that's not a reason to make that the go-to option.
On this, I think it isn't "adventures don't sell" it is "adventures don't sell enough for WotC to bother much with them" and was a major motivating factor of the original OGL. Having a lot of different kinds of adventures avaiulable is good for the game, but producing them is not good for one company. But smaller companies can benefit from publishing those adventures (along with splat books).It might very well be that PF1 sales were declining, to the point where Paizo needed to release a new edition to avoid closing their doors (from what I've read, the major motivation for new editions of TTRPGs is primarily financial). I just don't want to presume that out of hand; we used to presume that "adventures don't sell," but Paizo still sells Adventure Paths, stand-alone adventures, and Pathfinder Society adventures. So I'd rather not assume they can buck one trend but not another.
It is interesting that if we look at WotC's output during 5E, the majority of it has been in the form of adventures. Something changed, it seems.