Not sure why you think your continued ignorance is funny, but, okay.
You call it a "superfluous" level of detail to determine why people are getting the results they are getting? Fair enough I suppose. You feel that simply doing the math is all the proof you need. I do not. The math identifies potential problems, but, does not actually show that these are the actual problems. Whenever these threads start up, and they've been going on for years now, heck they were going on in 3e when everyone complained that 3e was too easy LOL.
Yet, as soon as we start delving down into actual play examples, time after time, it's revealed that the encounter was "easy" because the DM made mistakes, or the dice were running hot (or cold depending) in that particular encounter. It's so much confirmation bias. People think that a given encounter was too easy, therefore all encounters are too easy.
That's what actually tracking the math does. It removes the confirmation bias that permeates these discussions.