Not really sure what you're trying to say here.
If win was assured by a specific unit, then that's a testamtent to that units being overpowered to the point of overshadowing these other factors.
Unit should be just another factor, not a reason for win.
Not against other better player.
Even top players don't use conscripts outside of heavily doctrine supported builds. If your theory was true, conscripts would be competitive, but they aren't.
AAHT is, but current meta dictates the use of P2+Puma combo, which as I have said already, overshadows AAHT alone.
Ofc we shouldn't, but do we have any proof that there is anything wrong with AAHT outside of (giving massive credit to the OP and supporters) average players at best claims?
While good artisan will craft well with bad tools too, a bad artisan will still fail even with pristine high quality tools.
My point is that there are always multiple reasons for why a player wins a match, like you said, a unit is just another factor so the fact that somebody won using an AA halftrack doesn't mean it's a good unit, it means that the person using it knew what they were doing and had many other units at there disposal which they also used effectively.
I wasn't using the term "better player" to refer to top players, I was using it in it's literal sense. If two top level players play a match, the better player between the two is likely to win, sometimes even if they use a subpar unit.
No Conscripts wouldn't be competitive with my "theory" because conscripts are underpowered, however something being underpowered doesn't mean that they can't sometimes see some success when they are used by a very good player against a slightly worse or unlucky player.
For what reason do you think that mechanized builds are meta and are the more viable option between the two trucks? Shouldn't that mean that Battlegroupe is somewhat underpowered? After all, Battlegroupe is cheaper, comes earlier, gives access to medics, and gets you to T3 faster, so there must be something wrong if people want to go so far out of there way just to get a P2 or Puma.
I see it a lot like Soviet T2, it's a far less popular and successful tier because it has underpowered units (Maxim/AA Halftrack) and mediocre units (Soviet mortar/LeiG) and there is a much more effective alternative in the form of T1 for Soviets. Both factions have an effective tier and a largely ineffective tier.
Do you have any evidence that the people making these arguments are average at best, or is that just convenient for your argument?