So you seem to be defining "success" in terms of completing pre-planned flight events, which is fine. However, this is not the only metric by which one can define and assess success. Surely you must agree it depends on the objective.
We might as well be arguing over if the launch was "good" or "bad", -it is subjective.
One objective question you can ask is "Did the test complete the pre-specified criteria which SpaceX said they would consider a success?", which it did.
We could then debate if they have a dumb criteria for Success, and what we think is a better one.
Success is defined by meeting objectives. Primary objective was to not blow up the vehicle on the pad. Great success here.
Secondary objectives indeed aren’t met. I think everybody realizes by now that the big hole where the pad used to be is a bigger problem that it seemed initially. Any solutions are expensive and time consuming.
> everybody realizes by now that the big hole where the pad used to be is a bigger problem that it seemed initially
I'm seeing a lot of speculation and little engineering on this. Is there a good post hoc take on why it's a big problem?
Counterfactuals: it wasn't a production pad. It was designed to be expendable. That's why you don't put a bunch of expensive kit like deluge equipment on and around it; there's a meaningful chance you never clear the tower.
The problem isn’t that it didn’t survive, the problem is the style it went out with: how much of it didn’t survive, how far the rocks were flung (far!), how far dust settled (very far!) and the amount of engineering needed to build a flame diverter which can be called any sort of reusable. Also the amount of fresh water needed for the deluge will be simply epic.
The separation malfunctioned, that was not planned, this is not subjective.
What is subjective is defining if this is a 25%, 50% or 90% success (can't be 100%).