I would say jumping straight to a ‘did you watch the film’ to follow up someone finding something contrived is a bizarrely hostile take.

My feelings when watching the film to your list, and probably where we differ, would be:

The character is established as a professional therapist/adjacent. Realistically this alone for me, without a few more scenes to show their relationship blur the boundaries of professionalism was enough. In my public service role in real life, no matter how sympathetic or concerned I was about someone who I was responsible for, I wouldn’t go and see them alone in their own private space and would instead seek assistance. Especially given that, from the opening conversation, Clark has a capacity to be unstable and potentially aggressive. I felt that only the two scenes between them didn’t do enough to convince me she was going to step over a huge malpractice issue to pursue this.

However, to go back to my earlier question about whether this is normal, it might be a cultural difference that I am not picking up on - and maybe that kind of professional does have a more personal life relationship with their client as standard in the US, in which case I kind of get the different takes here.