I’m glad that your review is not another repetition of the same old themes that are often put forward.

You’re right that many people misread Aristotle’s Poetics.
Sometimes this is due to reading a particular translation and placing great emphasis on the specific wording. Although, since english versions are translated, this clinging to specific wording is often unhelpful. There are also some very major differences between translations. Some are minor word choice issues but some convey entirely different meanings of key features of the book.
Often, people will also pay more attention to secondary commentary (often based on a translation) than to the original and perpetuate popular misreadings or exaggerations.

I think Poetics is a good book, but many people could also benefit from thinking about how Aristotle came to write it (I’ve also seen a lecture from Yale in which a professor claimed that his students wrote it based on their lecture notes but I don’t know if that claim is based on convincing evidence): he watched a lot of plays and arrived at decisions on what he considered to work or not work and wrote about it. This is something that anyone can do now, without worrying about what other people say about how storytelling is or should be done. Abstract theory is only useful to the extent that it is an accurate description of what actually happens in practice, and a description can only ever be partial. Real understanding of stories is gained from having experience of real stories.