What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Solarra]

Getting back to the story...
And sorry, I'm no doubt rehashing a few points that have already been made considering the size of the thread.

I'm on another play through of Elpis and it's confirming my opinion that the writing was rushed because it could have been a lot tighter.

Just before he sends us into the past, Elidibus tells us we can observe and interact with the ancient world but we cannot change what is going to happen. However, the story of ShB centers around a character who had gone into the past and done exactly that. It seems odd there is no reason given why this situation is different.
I understand the plot of EW requires us to have no noticable effect on the past, but considering how things work out with Kairos, that warning is unnecessary; it serves no purpose and contradicts what has happened before.

It's interesting to see that Venat doesn't seem to have any reservations about their society and it's aims before we get Metion's report. Only Hermes asks what will happen when they achieve perfection and nobody answers him or even tries to discuss it.
I think Venat's sudden decision that the only way forward is to sunder every living thing and set back civilization to a point where the planet's inhabitants are basically having to re-evolve might have been more understandable if there was any hint that their society was stagnating or deeply flawed. As it is, we see no poverty, no disease (not so much as a pair or glasses!) and we learn war has been eliminated. I know the Dead Ends is supposed to show us how truly awful achieving perfection is, but... I don't feel it was inevitable that the ancients would followed the same path. And even if they were destined to go exactly the same route, I don't think that justifies genocide.
Oddly enough, the most disquieting hint about their society come from Emet's recreation of Amaurot in ShB, where we learned that even children expressing individuality through their clothing should be careful because 'you never know who is watching'. I think that could have and should have been built on.

As it is, ancient society on Etherys seems close to ideal. The Elpis flower shows that everyone bar Hermes is genuinely happy. If that happiness is meant to be dependent on a certain moral blindness, then I think the writers should have found a better example. Hermes having to kill creations that were merrily slaughtering everything in their path and who would have probably gone extinct due to hunger if released into the wild doesn't seem immoral or questionable to me.

After twelve thousand years, the societies on the source have evolved to quite a sophisticated level but people are still fighting for land and resources. Prejudice and corruption are rife, and many people are trapped in poverty and not leading happy and fullfilled lives (admittedly, the actions of the Ascians are partly responsible for present day suffering).
If the sundering had been accidental, or if the dire consequences had been unforeseen I could have accepted Venat as someone who meant well but did terrible things, as long as she was remorseful. As it is, I find it impossible to accept her actions as benevolent. She said she would not return to the star while people still needed her help and professed her great love for the people of her time, but then went and wiped out their entire civilisation and devoted herself to ensuring her actions could not be undone.
She lied to us from the start and I can only conclude she did that because she knew that we wouldn't have been quite so willing to fight for her if we had known the truth.
While the Ascian's often don't tell us the entire truth, they do not lie to us outright. I feel the writers maybe got that one wrong.

The main theme of the expansion seems to be that suffering is necessary and enobles. Not something I personally agree with and the writers didn't manage to convince me otherwise.

There is also a theme of people needing to be lied to for their own good running through the expansion, which I am personally very uncomfortable with. The actions of the Sharlayan Forum to go against the founding principles of their society, but somehow nobody questions whether concealing the truth was the right thing to do.
I'm also rather disturbed by the fact that Alphinaud and Alisae come from a family that seem to have an obscene amount of wealth when many Sharlayan's are living extremely frugal lives due to most resources being diverted to the evacuation effort.
That wealth is very convenient for the Scions, but I can't help wondering how the family amassed and kept it. It rather smacks of government officials in our world imposing austerity on the people they govern while ensuring they and their family live very comfortably indeed.

Minor Niggles:
I'm also disappointed with the direction they have taken G'raha. He had the potential to be a very interesting character, but now he's just our biggest teenage fanboy. What happened to all those centuries of experience and learning? He had one little moment of leadership and then just reverted back to being starry-eyed filler material.

6.1 was disappointing too. Since we know that Radz-at-Han has had the same ruler for centuries, despite it not appearing that way to the people, then wouldn't we have asked them about the treasure before we went blundering into that dungeon? It just seemed so incredibly stupid of us.

I am hoping 6.2 comes closer to the standard of storytelling we had in ShB.