PQ3 can’t be balanced the same as GoW. Your video was crystal clear on why board control in PQ3 can’t be allowed on the scale that it does in GoW.
In GoW, both the player and AI take turns actively manipulating the game board. Board control is important to minimize what the AI can do with the board (or preferably not allow the AI to ever take a turn).
In PQ3, the AI never actively manipulates the game board, unless the AI has an active ability ready to be fired and that ability manipulates the game board in some way. The player can deny mana to the AI via color conversion, but the AI’s active skill charges a fixed amount every turn regardless. Some opponents are all-but-guaranteed to get their actives off, especially if they are the first encounter in a skirmish or dungeon run (some story chains take advantage of this, such as the ghoul encounters in Chapter 8). Consequentially, the only real board control option that is present is stunlocking, which is your argument. From that perspective, it is a correct argument to present.
PAD, which the PQ3 board matching system broadly resembles, pretty much disallowed stunlocking years ago for similar reasons. If the AI never gets a turn, it doesn’t matter in the slightest how well scripted an encounter is, because everything in the entire game becomes trivialized through stunlocks. And that’s before consideration of all the out-of-combat systems in PQ3 that are currently made irrelevant because, as your video shows, the current end-game boss can be trivialized through stunlocks with newbie equipment.
While it is on-brand for Salty not to discuss such things openly,
I would be utterly shocked to the highest degree if the game launches with stunlocking being a viable tactic. Addressing this has to be Priority 1, if not 0, for them right now.