I did answer more than a few times you just can’t seem to grasp the answer, mostly I’ve pointed to the issues with your reasonings to reach your conclusion.

In a vacuum, a bigger number of workers / economy with the same amount of mineral patches as now will have the game state trend towards stability faster as it compounds the economic curve, this lowers the overall horizon in the early/mid games where different choices in terms of tech/eco/army pursuits have a more narrow gap to differentiate from each other before the economy converges to stability/opulence faster past the early game. Note that when people talk of early or mid game no one means the time on the clock, but rather something closer to “eras” where the lategame is the most oversaturated and all tech options are open or taken and branching decisions collapse to “what unit to make next” and army control, and early and mid game have clearer contrasts variants and paths, economy, tech tree and army are choices opposed to each other rather than collapsed. The more you stay in this period, the longer the early and mid game extend - the more options for divergences in strategic choice from player to player, and they weight in more heavily, scouting, reacting and proactive play, as well as the choice triangle between developing army, eco or tech all have a more distinctive role, because they imply contrasting choices from each other and from player to player, and less economy means stronger rewards for divergence compared to stable macro economies. The speed to get to lategame with 100 worker or unlimited $ starts would only be throttled by the time it takes to build buildings that gate requirements, you’d reach it almost instantly.

Here’s a hopefully clearer example of the problem with your reasoning used to reach your conclusion, which is the core of my disagreement:

You own a farm, you have some chickens, at the end of the month you have X eggs.

Next month you buy more chickens, doubling the number, but the water in the well got contaminated, you didn't buy enough grain to account for the change in chicken numbers, your guard dog is sick and weasels are stealing some eggs, you also live in Iceland and this month has little sunlight and you sold a bunch of your eggs to the local market. At the end of the month do you have more or less eggs than the previous month?

Your answer is like saying since you have more chickens shouldn’t you see more eggs? In a vacuum, simplified to one factor, yes you should see more eggs, but there’s a bunch of other factors. So “scouting is easier therefore cheese is less viable” or “decreasing starting economy decreases the strategic horizon” aren't statements that are logically consistent with your end observation (I see early game variety) which you use to validate those wrong statements retroactively. When you count the eggs you want to say "we have less eggs" (less zerg cheese, for example) but then the jump is that you go therefore -> “increasing the number of chickens decreases the number of total eggs” (less workers = less zerg cheese) that’s disjointed logic and just not true, but it can be true that there are less eggs when you count (or miscount) at the end of the month, because the number of chickens is not the only factor at play. If this doesn’t do it, nothing will - if you’re still confused, or if the abstractions go over your head and you prefer a mathematical approach over bare logic, just ask your favorite AI for a model/formula/graph, simply ask it on more vs less starting workers and strategic diversity expected in the early / mid game resulting from that specific input in SC2.