In general though, I'm not sure that the advice you've given is particularly helpful even if I hadn't shipped the prototype mentioned in the first post/didn't have testers giving feedback on the game along the way/hadn't had my GDD externally assessed as part of my grant application process. I have difficulty reconciling how strongly worded it was with just how much assumption it seems to carry.
Everybody works differently of course, but broadly speaking, there is a lot of value from a project management perspective in front-loading your unknowns as a way of managing the impact of things taking longer than expected. For this reason, the map and museum were the very first things I gave attention to when I started production, and that initial work has allowed me to more reliably plan the rest of development.
On a more direct note, if the core premise of my project is "Minesweeper with metaprogression" as explained in the thread, recommending that all metaprogression elements be removed comes across as very dismissive of the game's concept - there may be valid reasons to question the value of the premise/structure, but calling completed functionality "deadly feature creep" and not elaborating on why you see it that way/what shortcomings you see within it doesn't explore that in the way that asking questions and explaining reasoning would.
Since I've received funding do develop the game at its current scope, your recommended cuts would be particularly dangerous/risky for this project. The grant mentioned in the first post and each video carries obligations, and if I am found to be in breach of my contract, that will have consequences that would affect more than just this game. From where I'm sitting, that's a much bigger risk to the project and my livelihood than some potential scope creep.
I've been making games in some form or another for over 30 years now. I like discussing and sharing my work in the hopes that it gives some perspectives/empowerment to others. I often do see people struggling to deal with overscoping or navigating necessary scope changes - they're real hurdles that nearly everybody faces, but I've come to learn that recommendations are less valuable and surface fewer learning opportunities than offering thoughtful perspectives.
I don't know if any of that is likely to be helpful, but I hope it explains why cutting bigger/scarier features out or leaving them for later isn't a good fit with how I make things. I will, of course, be sure to use the same accent for all of my future dev log videos 😉