It's absolutely all subjective. If a person likes more attractions in the park than they don't, then our definitions of what "course-correcting" would look like will be very different.
When I say I think the park needs course-correcting, I'm talking about decreasing the percentage of park attractions that are screen-reliant and/or simulators. I don't see HRRR to F&F as a course-correction. I don't see Shrek to VillainCon as a course-correction. KidZone to DreamWorks was not a course-correction. These are like-for-like moves in the grand scheme of the composition of the park lineup. Some of these replacements may be better than what was there (I'd certainly expect F&F to be), but the park fundamentals continue to remain the same.
I also can't like or dislike any rumored directions if I haven't heard any rumored directions. There is no chatter of anything happening post-Supercharged replacement, and no strong indications of the direction that replacement is going to take, either (or how long it will take).
I think this is where the conversation keeps slipping back into personal preference while presenting itself as an objective analysis. The point is that we can still objectively evaluate subjective takes by looking beyond whether someone personally likes the attraction lineup.
Saying “USF still has too many simulators for my taste” is fair. But when “course-correcting” only means “adding the exact ride types I personally want,” then the discussion stops being about the park overall and becomes wishlist fulfillment. I hate fish sandwiches too, but I’m not arguing McDonald’s should remove them because they clearly serve a purpose.
Not every addition has to align with your personal tastes to represent Universal trying to address gaps in the park lineup.
DreamWorks Land is a good example. You’ve openly said it doesn’t work, mostly due to a lack of a true dark ride, and even just recently advocated replacing one of the park’s only true kids areas. That’s fine as a preference, but it also heavily shapes your evaluation of the land. Objectively, DreamWorks Land was meant to improve family offerings, especially for younger kids, and quickly modernize an aging section of the park. By most accounts, it succeeded at what it was designed to do, even if it wasn’t designed for your preferred tastes. I'm not saying it's groundbreaking, or that there isn't room for improvement, but I'm also not gonna say it's a complete failure either, and that it needs to be replaced.
Same with Fast & Furious. The criticism wasn’t just “simulator = bad”. People wanted a high-energy F&F attraction, one that went "Fast" & "Furious". Now Universal is replacing Supercharged before it even turns 10 years old with an attraction seemingly designed to address those exact criticisms.
And while USF hasn’t gotten additions on the scale of IOA or Epic in the last decade, it’s hard to argue there’s “no evidence” of Universal shifting philosophy. I think it’s hard to objectively argue there’s “no evidence” of Universal shifting philosophy. Epic Universe alone reflects that. They’ve also clearly been investing in entertainment, atmosphere, and food across the Resort. Two of the USF's most popular spots for locals are literally under major refurbishment right now (Finn's & HMU).
Again, none of this means you have to personally like the direction - but “I don’t like the direction” is very different from “there’s no evidence of a changing direction at all.”
So yes, I agree there’s no clear roadmap yet for USF specifically. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with acting like there are zero broader indicators of changing priorities within the company.