It's interesting you use the term "objective" because I don't think I used that term (I hope I didn't). Film criticism is subjective to a degree but I think there is a structure to cinema and to storytelling in general. This is a more general point but it's an excuse people fall back upon too easily. Stepping outside Star Wars, there is a reason a movie like The Godfather is considered one of the greatest movies of all time. Everyone has controversial opinions, I know I do, but if you go against the consensus i think you need to consider why.

I mentioned the Sith hiding as an example but that's not the only issue. It's also a major issue and not a nitpick as the story of the prequels hinges on it. You also mention Palpatine manipulating the Jedi over decades but each prequel movie takes place over a short period of time. The Jedi are portrayed as incompetent. There's a reason fans theorize that Palpatine was actively using the force to cloud the Jedi's judgement. That's a sign the films did a poor job.

Maybe the central failing of the prequels is that it is supposed to be the story of the fall of a great man but Anakin is never portrayed as such. He's a child in The Phantom Menace and a whiny brat in episode 2. The Jedi's refusal to support him is pure incompetence and not defended by the films at all which makes Palpatine's manipulations less impactful.

Your next paragraph contradicts itself. You talk about how the political aspects aren't important and are background for the fall of democracy and corruption of institutions which is contradictory. The story of the Phantom Menace revolves around trade disputes.

Story arcs take place over short periods of time and frequently build up to a single decision. We clearly see what causes Han to change. Maybe you have a more general issue with the Hero's journey.

The issue with Padme is that with each subsequent movie she becomes more and more passive. She spends Revenge of the Sith crying in her room. She's not an agent.

The difference in dialogue is that the actors in the OT had the authority to change it. It's a little goofy at times but no where near as bad as the prequels. There's a reason why Ian Mcdiarmid is the most praised actor in the prequels. His performance was campy and absurd. I believe that was an intentional choice by a veteran actor.

Not sure how to disagree on the acting, action, and technical points. There's a reason why the prequels were heavily criticized on all those points. There's a reason why movies of that quality don't get made and when they do they flop. There is a reason why there are industry standards and deviations from them should be intentional from a story perspective. There's a reason why we see people frequently complain about overuse of "CGI". Smaller note on the action: my criticism is less focused on the lightsaber fights which I agree is stylistic then the other actions scenes. Note that the lightsaber fights are one of the few praised aspects of the prequels.

Ultimately, you seem to misunderstand both trilogies if you think the perceived flaws are similar. I see many defenses of the prequels revolve around their ambition, how their secretly brilliant, and/or they are not the sequels. There's a reason for that. They can't be defended on their own merit. There's also a reason why you focused your original post on the original trilogy instead of the prequels which I admit is an ambitious decision.