What lore do you ignore?

[Lyth]

Looking back on Cleretic's original statement, a request was made that evidence be provided to back up claims about the story. This is not an unreasonable expectation for anyone, and the burden of proof rests with the writer to make sure that they provide their sources. This is a good habit to get into even if you're not specifically asked to. I spend a fair amount of time backtracking to previous scenes and quest dialogue lines in order to make sure that I can provide people with a reference so that they can check any queries for themselves. It's not appropriate to put that responsibility onto everyone else and force them to wade through an opinion video for the purposes of doing your fact checking for you.

That's shouldn't give cause to be interpreted as slight, either. Repeating an opinion, even across multiple accounts, does not make it fact. I'm aware that this community has some, shall we say, 'complex histories' amongst its members that apparently still rankle from the sounds of it, this really has no bearing on whether a statement is backed by evidence or not. It also seems to me that this particular routine gets trotted out frequently as a distraction tactic when its revealed that there's no actual substance behind the presented arguments.

If anything, I think that people here have a tendency towards being overly charitable, especially when there's clearly a recurring pattern.

Back (if fleetingly) on the thread's actual premise, I'm inclined to put "Venat deliberately spared Emet, Lahabrea and Elidibus" as at least tentatively "ignorable" in that it seemed like a hastily invented answer to something the writers hadn't properly considered when they settled on the final version of the plot.

The main opportunity to clear up their explanation would have been EE3 but that part of the plot summary (on page 13) simply states that they escaped the Sundering "by means unknown" and does not attempt to attribute it to being a deliberate part of Hydaelyn's plan.

In any case that comes back to what I was saying in an earlier post, because being given knowledge of the future puts Venat/Hydaelyn in an unpleasant situation so far as making decisions that would be cruel to individuals (on the assumption that the game is not lying when it portrays her as a wise and compassionate person).

Does she really wilfully leave the will-be Ascians unsundered and tormented, or does she reason that she will simply aim to sunder all of existence and that if the future-history is true, there must be some unknowable occurrence when she does so that results in those few people slipping through the cracks?

I also feel that the provided explanation is flimsy, but they wrote themselves into a corner with the 'Unsundered' designation. It is very difficult to create a global event that specifically spares three people. It gets even more complicated when one of them is supposed to be the Heart of Zodiark, and the EE Vol. 3 states that Hydaelyn and Zodiark were locked in combat when the Sundering happened. They could try to invent loopholes to get around this (perhaps another time travel loop), but I'm actually glad that they just gave up and handwaved it rather than potentially digging themselves in deeper.

Setting aside the philosophical question of whether events are stochastic or deterministic, 'future knowledge' is really only useful if you can safely act on it. It's actually more more beneficial to be able to reset a decision, because that way you can actually test whether the outcome is better or not.

Given that Venat has to get this right on a single playthrough, it really comes entirely down to her judgement of the personalities involved. Based off of what she heard in Poieten Oikos, it probably would have made sense not to let Emet escape. But for whatever reason, she counted on him to do the right thing in the end, and it actually proved to be the winning gambit in Ultima Thule that ensured everyone's survival.