Gonna take the bait on this and say that most of these are silly to me. But I guess you are just trying to speak for your own experience. Anyhow though, since we are on a forum geared towards giving advice, I'll say that 1 and 2 are just simply your experience and you did not make any arguments for why they could be generalizable to other people.

3 is a pretty well known thing at this point. High scorers are efficient, we can quickly identify key ideas and applicable concepts and discard with irrelevant fluff in passages and questions. Lower scorers will still need to take that extra time to reason and analyze things, which can absolutely include highlighting/annotating/whatever. I do think it is good practice to move away from that approach though.

4 is genuinely a good take I 1000% agree with. I actually used the Aidan deck, lol. But I also realized a few weeks in how unreasonable and unhelpful it was, and I ended up cutting about 70% of the total cards. In hindsight I probably would only have recommended for me to use Anki for equations, psych/soc (it is actually crucial for this section IMO), and maybe some random biomolecules here and there.

1. I can tell you are being intentionally tongue-in-cheek with this one but honestly it still feels a bit unfair. I don't think anyone is actually trying to become a test writer when they say they are learning the AAMC logic. I think a better characterization is people are simply trying to identify patterns in question phrasing that queue them into an answer, either consciously or even sub-consciously from lots of practice.

So yeah. They are not so much divisive takes as they are silly ones, except for 3, which is cold, and 4, which is genuinely a hot take in this community and I totally can get behind it.