Sorry, but you can't arbitrarily decide that woke doesn't hurt PF1 because of its sales figures, and then suddenly ignore PF2's sales figures and its woke content. Note, I'm not arguing that woke is the only, or even primary, reason PF2 is floundering. But I will argue that you can't reduce a complex situation (PF1's success) to a simple "people don't care about woke," only to reject that simplistic interpretation when it doesn't fit the next set of data.
If amount of woke content would change significantly up from PF1 to PF2 then yes.
But as according to my observation it's generally high from the get go and reached really woke level years ago - then yes I shall not include it in set of data explaining why PF2 sells way way worse than PF1.
Also I have not claimed it's a reason of PF1 success. Reason of PF1 success was foremostly - orphan population of 3,5 players that hated 4e - they wanted more of the same game - ergo 3,5 - that's most crucial element. And it was enough.
So if PF1 and PF2 are simmilarily woke, then difference between their results lie beyond question "woke or not woke".
PF1 may not have suffered at the beginning from its woke, simply because it was the only major alternative to 4e. But as the woke grew, the loyalty to PF1 may have decreased until the wokeness played a role in PF2 not being as successful. This is not an either-or proposition. The level of woke is a scale, and Baizuo has been consistently sliding the scale upwards. People who were "pot-committed" (to use a poker term) may have grimaced but continued on with PF1, but drawn the line with PF2 because they had no investment in it.
It is possible - but then again that points to new mechanics as a reason of failure. Even anti-woke players bought PF1 because they wanted 3,5 style game, so obviously not reason to follow when they changed into utterly new itteration of D&D-oid.
I can't tell if you are just missing the obvious or willfully obtuse. The reason that the sequels were an "ill-planned incoherent mess" was the same reason for the pink wig. They were planned as a repudiation of everything Star Wars originally stood for. You can't have the writers tweeting out "the Force is female!" and assert that woke wasn't the foundation of the whole plot line...
While I consider wokism to seriously increase chances for bad plot - those are not essentialy connected.
There is no WOKE reason for not planning trilogy from the get go, for allowing screenwriters of 3 parts to write them ultimately separatedly which leads to utter disjunction of all story.
That is just shoddy planning, and shoddy storytelling.
Would be just as bad - if they put Akbar in place of Holdo.