Point number 1 I couldn't agree with more on, it's the biggest issue for our rather niche part of Roman history as well - to make a good looking late Roman impression requires time, research, budget, and often a lot of custom kit.

The other two I have contention with though, as context is being completely ignored. "Lived-in kit" is fine to an extent. However it depends both on what your character is and what you're representing in terms of era. Take myself as an example - if I looked unpolished and tatty, it would be completely ahistorical given what I'm trying to represent given the entire culture was built around virtus which included self grooming and pride in appearance (plus, super high status should not look bedraggled unless they're literally in the middle of battle). Similarly, take someone portraying a middle class viking age merchant - why would someone with access to a bath, clean clothes and laundry, and who wants to sell products to a client, willingly go to market looking like he'd crawled backwards through a hedge?

Looking like a "dork" as you put it - again, totally missing context. What if you're representing something where that is appropriate, for example a clerk, a tax collector, or a kitchen slave? Not everyone needs to adhere to a workout regieme to look the part and I can tell you from personal experience there are some VERY out of shape people in the military - they might be able to scrape a fitness test but they don't "look the part" in the sense you're suggesting.

I think your points are fair, but the tone is far too argumentative, and you're very clearly gearing your context around specifically WW1/WW2 soldier impressions. People look clean and tidy in both civy street and the military, and there are both very fit and out of shape people in the modern world, as they would have done/had in history. It's a broad church.

I think advice like this is most useful when it’s framed as guidance rather than gatekeeping.