I generally agree with you, and, as it happens, I practice this in my own music. Still, we have to allow for the historical fact of pieces such as this Scriabin Prelude discussed here on the forum several months ago. I’m afraid I don’t know enough about Scriabin to say whether his intention was to insult the pianist.
You’re a bolder and braver person than I!
This has been meaningfully countered by Lillie above:
One way or another, if the computer tries to figure out everything we meant, especially in cases where we’ve been inserting meter changes later (as Leo demonstrated above), it could only try, and some kind of mismatch with our intentions — either a measure with the wrong amount of “stuff” or a change in our original rhythmic pattern — would have to be caught by the human.
We are all already in “violent agreement” about this, which the Dorico team has already repeatedly acknowledged. Seems like it’s best if we move on to other topics and let this one lie. (Hope we folded a useful answer in there somewhere for you, @JMJR!)