This is just speculation.
Extrapolation. Its been a problem that has been observed in edition changeover in the D&D sphere twice running, then dropping away, and the same pattern seems present in the PF2e APs. You're not required to find it compelling, but it seems at least as good an explanation as the one you're suggesting.
You're basically saying there were problems before so there must be problems now, even though the problems might not be the same.
Given the cause of the problems previously is not exactly a state secret, suggesting its a common pattern and could be a cause now does not seem exactly a massive reach, since in each case we're talking editions of a game where the game play changed in some serious ways while still showing a continuity of system. This has been true in the transition from AD&D2 to D&D3e, D&D3e to D&D4e, and PF1e to PF2e to a degree that is rarely the case in game edition changeovers (and when it is is often on games that don't do much adventure support anyway).
That's just not stringent enough for me. I am having a serious analysis of Pathfinder 2, you're just shooting from the hip.
Except, as I noted, your analysis does not seem to be matching the data from the field.
What are you talking about? The Agents of Edgewood adventure path is written for law enforcement heroes and so it tries much harder to provide non-combat solutions. But if and when the heroes do choose combat, that combat is just as unrelentingly hard as before because the encounters are consistent with the guidelines just like before. The kobolds, the owlbear, the ankhrav...
Not the reports back I've heard on the subject. Every time I've seen someone talk about problems with APs for PF2e, they've made a clear distinction between the difficulty of Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse and the later APs.
I'm telling you that what the encounter guidelines list as reasonable (and what every single last one of Paizo PF2 modules employ) - a "moderate" encounter - can easily be a harrowing and deadly encounter. At level 1.
See above. A rather large number of people seem to disagree with you in practice. So what's your explanation there?
This is what I'm discussing. Your involvement led me to believe I had found someone to partner up with in investigating this. But it has become obvious to me you're not that person. I don't get the impression you're interested, as you're neither acknowledging or contesting these specifics.
Again, because you're operating on a premise
I am not convinced of. I've explained above and previously why. If you want to explain why the trendline is people having trouble with the first two APs and not the later ones, I'll listen, but until you do you're making a claim (the one I respond to above)
I do not accept.
You just want to discuss this from some overall abstract high perch, no specific system knowledge needed. But I'm not here to discuss generic "wisdom" like "there's bound to be teething issues".
Of course there is, but what are they exactly, and what is the specific cause?
At this stage consider that a rhetorical question, not an invite.
If you want to stop responding to my posts, you can do so at any time. I'm not obliged to do so simply because you find my responses annoying.