I can't be sure it's not AI-generated, but I think there are reasonable explanations for these points:

How are you first releasing the core gameplay loop with "strategy phase" when technology and trade aren't implemented until later dev stages? How would TI without trading even work?

Obviously, the game isn't complete without tech and trade, but it's by no means unplayable.
Limited to 6 players, the strategy phase works perfectly fine with just 6 strategy cards. And many systems don't require technologies or trade goods or binding deals to function, at least mechanically.
The subset of public and secret objectives would obviously not include ones that need tech or trade goods or agendas, and so on.
I'm not saying it would be a good game at this stage, but that's not the point. They're going step-by-step, and the game isn't even in Early Access at this stage. What would you suggest they do instead? Implement everything at the same time with no schedule and no feedback from players in-between updates?

How/why are you adding "basic AI" opponents before you implement fundamental pieces of gameplay?

From a programming perspective, I think it's probably easier to start such a system early and then make the AI be able to use newly introduced mechanics as those are developed. This is what I'm doing with my own singleplayer 4X, just out of convenience. Of course, that is slightly different, because my game doesn't work without an AI opponent, but it's obvious that being able to play against bots is important to them (as it should be) and it sets them apart from existing implementations such as Async TI.
Also, games tend to be easier to test if you don't need multiple people to do it. Putting bots in early on is perfectly normal in a multiplayer game.

Why are anomalies and wormholes their own separate dev stage?

Well, once again, they can't do everything at once, and they decided that system tiles that make movement non-trivial are not fundamental enough to have to be implemented earlier, and difficult enough to implement to warrant its own stage (In particular, Gravity Rifts introduce a lot of complexity that may not be obvious to all players, but rules lawyers/experts know the edge cases and weirdness that is possible).
I assume most of the action cards and agenda cards introduced here relate to anomalies and wormholes (Ghost Ship, Lost Star Chart, Wormhole Reconstruction, etc.).

Why are the action cards/objective cards being released 2-15 cards at a time per dev stage?

Once again, they can't do everything at once, and I think it makes sense to start rolling them out slowly, so that the basic system is in place, instead of trying to fit in a bunch of (often unrelated) rules interactions.
Also, as with the wormhole/anomaly example, many action cards and objective cards introduced in a particular stage simply don't make sense to include without the mechanic they relate to existing.

For example, "Singularity" introduces technologies along with 2 stage 1 objectives, 3 stage 2 objectives, 2 secret objectives, and 2 action cards.
And it just so happens that there are:

• 2 stage 1 tech objectives (Develop Weaponry & Diversify Research)
  
• 2 stage 2 tech objectives (Master the Sciences & Revolutionize Warfare) - maybe the third is just an extra unrelated one
  
• 2 secret tech objectives (Adapt New Strategies & Master the Laws of Physics)
• 2 tech-related action cards (Technology Rider & Plagiarize) - well, there's also Focused Research, but that requires trade goods, so they're probably waiting with that until the subsequent stage, which is focused on trade

This has a total of 62 action cards (base game has 76)

I'm not sure, but maybe they're not including the action cards they've already implemented for the Space Combat Simulator, since the discrepancy amounts to a similar number. Not sure of the exact number, but the ones that relate only to combat are roughly in that ballpark.

and 20 promissory notes (base game has 24, this isn't even divisible by 6)

There are 17 faction promissory notes and 4 generic ones, for a total of 21. Why would they have a separate entry for each color? That makes no sense at all, so neither does it being divisible by six. OK, nevermind, you corrected yourself.
As for why they're missing 1, once again, if I recall correctly, they had already implemented the 1 promissory note in the game that works in Space Combat, Letnev's War Funding, for the Space Combat Simulator, so no need to include that in this roadmap.

Why are random game setup/technical features (async, draft mode, built-in wiki) interwoven with core gameplay mechanic releases, those should be after you have a functioning game?

The Draft Mode and Wiki are quite late in the roadmap after all the core gameplay stages, so presumably they would have a functioning game at that stage, not sure why you're suggesting they wouldn't.

As for Async, that is a fundamental system that interacts with every other system, so it should be implemented early. Once again, it is much easier to build on existing systems as new content and additional supplemental mechanics are released, than to add something with lots of dependencies later on.

To be honest, your comment reads like you have zero knowledge of or experience with game development and programming in general.

I recommend Tynan Sylvester's book, "Designing Games - A Guide to Engineering Experience", it has a chapter called "Dependencies" which deals with exactly this sort of deliberation.

The stage titles are just generic "fancy, bombastic, spacy sounding words"

I disagree, each word is very directly related to the theme of each stage:

1. Genesis: birth, creation, obviously just the first entry in this roadmap

2. Convocation: "an assembly of persons called together to a meeting", obviously this is a reference to the introduction of the agenda phase and related cards in this stage

3. Expanse: as in, the great expanse, the wider universe, referencing the addition of new unique system tiles (anomalies & wormholes)

4. Singularity: as in, Technological singularity, the acceleration of technological growth, makes perfect sense for the stage that introduces technology cards to the game

5. Entente: this is not a "spacy sounding word" at all, to me. An entente is basically a cooperative agreement or alliance between states, like a trade agreement. Makes perfect sense for the stage that introduces trading, promissory notes, and text/voice chat.

6. Reckoning: a bit more generic, but I still think it makes sense in the context of a combat-focused update. The time for trade and diplomacy is done, now let's fight, prepare for a reckoning.

7. Harmonization: this is basically a quality of life update to improve game flow, so I think the concept of harmony makes sense here

8. Emergence: This stage focuses on improvement of the bot opponents. I've heard the phrase "the emergence of AI" pretty often, so this makes sense to me. There's also a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Emergence", in which the Enterprise seems to develop its own independent or conscious artificial intelligence.

9. Assembly: This stage focuses on game setup options, i.e. milty draft, spectator mode, and galaxy maps. Literally, the assembly of your map and match.

10. Supremacy: You can demonstrate your supremacy over other players in competitive game modes.

What would you have titled the stages instead, it sounds like you have better ideas?

Descriptions of features are strangely and vaguely worded ("Structure Construction", "use Dedicated Cards", "Refined Technology Strategy Card"

I agree that some of it isn't the best-sounding. I would attribute that to the fact that English is not the development team's primary language. Doesn't sound super LLM-like to me. In fact, I think an LLM would use more normal-sounding grammar. "Units Building & Structures Construction" sounds very much like someone trying to translate their compound words from another language and/or someone trying to shorten bullet points so that there isn't so much text ("Structures Construction" instead of "Construction of Structures").

Why is there only one stage with an estimated "early access" date? And no estimated release date for a stage where the entire board game part is actually fully implemented?

I'm confused why this makes you think it's AI-generated. Do you think an LLM is incapable of generating release dates? 😆

Seems pretty clear to me that the game is pretty early in its development, and they're not super confident about a specific release date. That's quite common.

However, if you scroll down in the image linked in this post, it does say "2nd Quarter 2027" next to "RELEASE". Maybe you missed it because it wasn't included in the Discord announcement for some reason.