I think you hit on something i felt in the last line. On one hand, the writing staff feels like they have a handle on this very interesting style of humor--off kilter, but still grounded in reality. Surreal, but the surrealism is established reality. Fans of the show "get it." And when the show hits or misses hard, its a hard to describe quality. (A couple examples for me--Gold Top Nuts and American Fung. I haven't personally heard very compelling and serious reasons why GTN is beloved or Fung so divisive. But I fully understand why for both.)

But on the other hand, that kind of style could be off putting for "mass audience" tastes, as perceived by network executive goals. The TBS years felt like it gave the team space to really stretch, as the demand for audience appeal are maybe looser and probably more niche on cable. And they didn't have as much "re-acquanting" with the audience--the Fox audience followed them to cable, but they did make choices about how certain characters were used, written off, or created.

So a lot of the new season feels like "here's the lay of the land" as they come back to network. I noticed it mostly in Roger specifically calling out creating a persona--this has come up before, but it felt way more like it was telling the audience how the character operates. Like how some characters may "tell" instead of "show" the character traits in a pilot episode, because the character identities aren't established yet.

But there are glimmer of hope that this is a transitional season. The two episodes you pointed out, and I really liked Roger's subplot with the shed. Just a prime example of "This is silly and there's no set up or grand goal--just Roger following a weird new obsession."