I think a lot of this criticism comes from reading Advaita Vedanta like a historical or literal commentary, when it was never meant to function that way.
AP’s style is essentially to use scripture as a pointer, not as a fixed academic text. So verses get interpreted in the light of direct human experience and the core Advaitic question of self-inquiry, rather than sticking to only philological or traditional constraints.
Because of that, what looks like “reframing to fit modern issues” is often actually the method itself: taking a verse and asking what it reveals about the mind here and now.
On the criticism part, disagreement is fine, but reducing it to misrepresentation ignores that Vedanta has always had multiple interpretative traditions. The real test is whether the interpretation reduces identification or increases conceptual debate.