I do not. I think Blades looks and feels different when watching than D&D of any edition. (I watched this episode Blades in the Dark@Scott Christian , take a look at what I wrote about the watching of a proficiently run/played Blades game and contrast that with your expectations of a proficiently run/played 5e AP game. Then look at @niklinna ‘s actual appraisal of watching said Blades game. Do you think that description (mine) and his appraisal matches how you would depict a normative, proficiently run/played 5e AP game.
This is my point. If your premise is to improve yourself as a DM or GM, you can analyze all you want. If you bring in other games (which I said was good), then there is something to be learned. Eventually, you have to compare apples to apples though. This 5e game to that 5e game. Then you contrast, and find the areas you can improve.
If your premise is to create a philosophy, where you differentiate between playstyles, then you need a neutral tone, author and arbiter. This thread was not the case. It attached clearly negative words to a playstyle. It also presented vocabulary that was not needed.
You can analyze something and explain it simplistically. You can compare and contrast things to gleam insight into what to change or keep or expand at your table. You cannot promote a philosophy that sits on 1" ice at the end of March.