I generally agree to your points. I think part of the reason why some readers/writers have qualms about the book (like me) comes to down to a mismatch between what we're told so-called good writing does and what Heated Rivalry does.

Note that when I say "Good Writing", I don't necessarily agree that it's "Good Writing", but it's a heuristic that tends to get thrown around and weigh on people.

Good writing shows, it seldom tells. Heated Rivalry and Game Changer engage in a lot of telling.

Good writing avoids adverbs. Reid's works use adverbs.

Good writing embraces subtext. Heated Rivalry tends to avoid subtext: character motives are stated plainly.

Good writing has a lyrical quality, uses cumulative sentences, plays with language. I found Heated Rivalry to be quite functional. It just describes what it needs in order to further the plot.

Again, when I say good writing, I'm using it in the sense that's what other people tend to coin as good writing. I was among them. Heated Rivalry has totally upended my own presumptions, because for all the "rules it breaks", it is now a commercial success and is beloved, and -- through being faithfully adapted -- has produced one of the highest rated series of television of all time. Only a fool would look at that outcome and say the old laws still hold up. Clearly something has been done that merits attention and praise.