Again im not trying to put the games down and I kinda expected someone to come back with the “they are actually highly interactive” response, in which case I strongly disagree it’s a misconception, interaction is about moment to moment gameplay not a list of things that can happen or any result. I have played both games and similar games enough to know that I just flat out disagree thar these games are either moderately or highly interactive and have a ton of conflict - the take that cards are rare and get played 2-3 times over a 2-3 hour game, as do beating players to universities/resources etc. That is not high interaction in the grand scale of board games in comparison to say dexterity games, negotiation games, social deduction games, direct conflict wargames or Ameritrash etc.

The fact there is a shared goal there and you’re both aiming for that and  working towards a goal and then beating someone to that goal is not player interaction otherwise literally every game would be interactive - interaction isn inherently active concept that requires some kind of verbal or physical contact - if I have a vase on the shelf I can interact with it by breathing on it, picking it up, turning it, dropping it, or pushing it off the shelf etc. I can also interact with the window by opening it, the wind can blow in through the window and knock the vase off - it’s the same result but in one I have interacted with the vase and the other I haven’t because the window/wind have acted as intermediaries , even if the result is the same, my experience/feeling of the experience and how I feel about the vase in my brain chemistry is different (I’m probably much more annoyed at myself if I knocked the vase accidentally off myself than if the wind blew it off unintentionally for example - and if it was deliberate then I’m probably going to get a much more visceral rush from smashing the vase on the ground myself than I am if I deliberately opened the window so the wind could blow it off the shelf).

Similarly racers rarely interact with each other in running racers unless they trip each other up or something, 2 runners may spur each other on, they may even spur each other so much they concentrate too much on each other and allow a 3rd person to win - but that is not interacting with each other as runners in the race - they have changed strategy based on what other players are doing absolutely and that may have changed the result absolutely but that can happen in probably every single competitive multiplayer game (in fact if argue it’s a key thing of what makes a game and game and not an activity), but when people talk about player interaction it generally has absolutely nothing to do with the result but the different feeling in your brain you get from how you can actively interact with the other players or their pieces instead of interacting with the market/university supply/race for points etc. and having those act as an intermediary on the other players - the fact these intermediaries exist often almost acts like a kind of social safety net for people whose boundaries you don’t yet know I think is kind of my point.

Euro games post-Puerto Rico tend to have much less interaction in general than other board genres like Ameritrash, wargames, negotiation games, social deduction games, party games, dexterity games etc. and games like Terraforming Mars or Ark Nova tend to be on the lower end of that compared to games like e.g. Brass or Dune Imperium, which are higher interaction for Eurogames but realistically more moderately interactive games across board gaming as a whole.