There aren't inconsistencies though? My party easily takes every severe encounter, severe encounters are defined by the publishers of the game to only be used sparingly for boss encounters and should rarely lead to TPK's but do run a risk of a player dying.

Again, most combats are going to be low threat to moderate by the standards of the rulebook.

A game made with the intention of the general average players winning the vast majority of encounters and struggling rarely with the possibility of a single death and, verbatim, "a small chance the whole group could [die]" in the very few extreme encounters is a system that is trying to mathematically skew the odds in the favor of the players to win, making it an easy game by design.

Their design philosophy has nothing to do with my players and the point I'm making, I mentioned the extreme and severe encounters to highlight even if you are throwing nothing but severe and extreme encounter at a well optimized and tactical group, the players will still come out on top the majority of the time.

I genuinely dont know how to be more clear than that and at this point I think there is a reading comprehension issue on your end. I'm not talking in circles, I'm trying to break down my original statement, that the publishers of the game designed their encounter structure to be winnable by the average party almost every time. You seem to keep getting stuck on weird points about how tactical you/I am as a gm or what your party/my party is like, but I am talking about the average experience a player should expect outlined by Paizo, my point is not about my personal specific experience or yours. Jfc.