IMHO there are other aspects that can differentiate between an o5e and a LU campaing and may need some consideration (not necessarily an adaptation process)
One is that there's way more ways and good mechanical reasons to earn and spend money. Even ordinary equipment, followers and strongholds can be very good investments with an explicit price tag attached, i..e. they make for very good player chosen goals AND rewards.
On the same line, it's refreshing how reasonable are the prices, costs and times given by LU to craft magic items, instead of pretty much nonexistent o5e rules. Low-mid level characters can plan on what to invest, or gather specific ingredients to make specific items to deal with specific quests. Need to face a volcano? Maybe a good idea to get some fire resistance potions, let's look for the ingredients and see if we can craft it, or there's someone in town that can do that.
The other aspect as already mentioned is the monsters. o5E has simplified a lot the monsters wrt 3.5. Per se this is a good thing as handling some monsters was extremely taxing, but I feel they overdid it. Even worse, the CR and encounter design rules as specified are... let's say whimsical. If you're an experienced DM you'll immediately notice that the "ordinary encounter" monster that was placed in a published adventure can easily oneshot every PC, and you'll play it carefully. If not, you'll have very ugly surprises and will have to scramble for a solution.
LU instead has a really simple AND reliable monster design. They are interesting too. This makes running monsters much more interesting and above that safe, which is a huge plus.
The simple monster and encounter design guidelines are very helpful and are followed consistently in ENworld's publications, so I'm very curious to see how well some 2e monsters can be adapted (that would allow for some very interesting sessions indeed!)
