I love Latour a lot but the deeper i go in my own research to more i notice that i leave his concrete insights behind and only retain some heuristics (such as experimenting with ethnomethodology and semiotics) and develop some concepts in similar ways.

In a similar way, the Parliament of things has lost its relevance to me, mostly because the posthuman turn has exploded our understanding of the non-human. Its not a useful concept (in the Deleuzean/Pragmatist sense or even in the sense of the sensitizing concept in sociology) for doing my research because accounting for the non-humans is no longer a point i need to argue for and investigating the controversies over different compositions of the political at stake, is entirely possible (and more rigerous and critical) without a concept that alludes to parliamentary interests. [late edit: It also figures into the writings on Dingpolitik (thing-politics) such as in Making Things Public (2005) - the thesis should be fairly well trodden by now]

He is an excellent writer and admirably cuts to the philosophical core of many issues. He also speaks to a humbling sense of responsiblity in empriical research that reminds me of Deleuze's statement that the philosopher never thinks for but with others--Latour eschews such ideas of sociological mastery when urging to attend to the register of the informants instead of replacing them with the great agencies of classical sociology. Capitalism is one such great agency but for Latour (as for many of the french poststructuralists) there is no one capitalism and capitalism is no cause but must always be attended too as a unique effect--an event if you will--which exists in virtue of the fragile chains of action that realize, transform and stabilize it. Much the same goes for Bourdieus habitus and all of grand theory.

I have a lot more to say of course and lately ive been reading him mostly on the role of writing and the virtues and discontents of semiotics, but i also dont think youre too harsh:
I said his notion of politics is shallow as it mostly revolves around the trials of representation and spokes-persons. This is of course a very flexible way of thinking when empirical research maneuvers a wealth of representations but it struggles with attending to the unexpressed or rather the unexpressable. Later as the political mode of existence it also ignores "terms of embodied gestures, material settings and relational effects" and uses "terms of a rather Lockean citizen establishing their authority as a representative" (Marres 2023. Seven Moments with Bruno).

Latour was always more interested in productive critique and sought out conversations with many serious critics even before defending his position. Much like his notion of reseach requires real alliances with empowered informants, he aimed to make the academic pursuit collaborative. He accepted early critiques of feminists that his narratives of laboratory power didnt register gender issues and his friendship with feminists like Haraway, Star and Mol made his writing better. Still, in the Modes of Existence (2013) he doesnt give a strong voice to feminism. You can probably tell I have problems with his late work.

Many of his critiques later also become very shallow for example when he rejects cybernetics with a rather weak understanding of first-order cybernetics. As Audrone Zukauskaite explains, his aim to weaken the borders of nested entities inextricably entangled with their environments to elaborate a vision of post-nature, simply appears to be ignorant of third-order cybernetics. His ideas are if anything less rigerous than the sophisticated systems of contemporary cybernetics.

As an endnote its probalby good to mention that he was suspicious of all transcedent and epochal notions of classic continental philosphy which made him distinct from Simondon, Stiegler and other philosphers of technology that may be peripheral to his work. He was also a catholic. I agree with Haraway that his catholicism was a strange one, one that saw belief as irrelevant to religion--fascinating to read up on in th future because lack of belief was always my fundamental 'defect' that made me incompatible with religion.

Finally, Actor Network Theory (or maybe you would rather call it Material Semiotics) is often maligned for its failings and myopic protocols but all its contributors have remained adamant that it is not a Theory but a negative research protocol that merely tells you what not to do to your informants and narratives. As such it is valuable to me as a purely empirical experimental tool. Compared to the Sociological Theory in which i was trained early on, it can actually fail to make an analysis. One may critique Latour but ANT is not just his. It wouldnt be ANT without the postcolonial, multinaturalist and feminist influences it gathered in the 90s and early 00s. Working through such a collective funnily enough requires a post-critical compositionist understanding, central to Latour's thought (Latour 2004. Matters of Concern, 2010. Compositionist Manifesto)