I agree, this reads like a reporter interviewing someone to get them to define terms they made up. This didn't sell me on why I should want to use one style of play over another, just wistful "torturing" themself wondering if anyone still uses this mysterious style of play. It's not mysterious. As you said, it's just Play to Find Out.

I think it would be more useful to show the strengths and weaknesses of PtFO and as well as more scripted gameplay, because each has a place in RPGs, and knowing when to use one over another is a great skill for GMs to practice.

I've been using the Pathfinder 2E Beginner Box, and it's the first time I've run a premade adventure. I've been customizing it quite a bit in terms of the story to better match my players. I expected the adventure to feel stale and on-rails, but what I found was that it gives you a safe baseline to work from. If you find any parts of session planning stressful, you can just leave them at the baseline and devote more of your time toward the things you actually enjoy.

In my case, I was still learning the system, so it was nice not having to worry about balancing encounters, drawing maps, or distributing treasure. Instead, I was able to spent my prep time on modifying the story.

I'm in the exact same boat. I'd like to use some of the monster lore and trying to convert the action oriented bosses to be used in PF2e. I'm thinking it would be pretty easy to just treat the Villain Actions as costing two actions in Pathfinder. I think the minion rules would transfer over as well.

This is great advice. I like how this shares the narrative burden with the other people at the table. Mini-encounters like these give you some insight into a characters values, it's less railroad-y, and there's always the threat that it could turn into a big encounter if handled poorly. Plus, the players discussing what they want to do takes up some real world time, and that makes the travel seem less instantaneous.