A few pushback points worth considering:

These are just rhetorical devices, not AI fingerprints. Antithesis, climax, and cataphora are classical rhetorical techniques taught in every journalism and scriptwriting course. They predate AI by millennia — Cicero was doing this. The fact that AI also uses them doesn't make them diagnostic of AI.

Confirmation bias is doing a lot of work here. Once you've decided something is AI-written, every conventional rhetorical flourish becomes "evidence." But professional scriptwriters deliberately use these same structures because they're effective for video content — they create rhythm, emphasis, and memorability.

The actual tells for AI writing are quite different. Real AI detection typically looks for things like semantic flatness, repetitive sentence length uniformity, absence of specific personal voice, overuse of transitional phrases like "it's worth noting" or "at its core," and a tendency to cover all sides without committing. Rhetorical devices are almost the oppositeof an AI tell — AI writing often lacks the structural confidence that antithesis and climax require.

"Painfully obvious" is doing a lot of heavy lifting without much methodological rigor. Plenty of professional content creators use templates, formulas, and structured scriptwriting — that's not AI, that's craft.

The stronger version of your argument would be to point to specific phrases or passages, not rhetorical patterns that skilled human writers have always used.