Will EA and Bioware actually use MEA as a learning lesson?

Well, you'd obviously be happier if they just had a paragraph at the start like ME1..because, again, that's the level of this particular decision in this game (how it might affect a sequel is unknown - dad may still be brought back to life).  If you want to establish on screen emotional your character is in every situation... it's not reasonable.  This was set up the way it was so that the player could decide whether or not to do one particular optional quest - Ryder's Family Secrets.  The game's ending functions just fine no matter which way you decide (as it should with an optional side quest).  There IS, however, more involved in the side quest... if you do it.  You do find out about mom being alive and you get a scene with your twin about that.  If you don't, you don't know she's there, so you don't get that scene.  You get all the memory scenes through doing that quest as well.  The only thing not shown is obvious emotion on screen... for that you are given two hours "with your own thoughts" expressly said in the game.  For crying out loud... stop bitching about it and use your imagination.

How is your PC waiting 30 seconds until everyone leaves the room to break down over it an unreasonable alteration to your ability to roleplay a character who cared about his dad?  Particularly when ME1's 3 background choices were made without anything and ultimately had zero impact on the ending of ME1... It didn't matter whether Shep grew up an orphan in a slum on earth or on a ship with a mom and dad in space (and you have no idea in that game what they were like) or was captured as a slave in Mindoir.  The choices resulted in 1 of 3 optional side quests... that's it, that's all.  I really don't see how this is materially different from that... but obviously it was so much better done in ME1 for you.

You say you understand limitation... but you want PASSIONATE simply because you want it.  Passionate Ryder is outside the limitations of the game... He's not within the range of characters Bioware wrote into the game.  Evil Ryder is also outside the limations of the game.  You have a range of young, inexperienced Ryders to select from.  The personality choices range from casual and easy-going to logical and professional.  Exactly what the options indicate.  Nothing says that an RPG has to offer every range of personality.  TW3 only offers one type of personality... and yet, it's not criticized for lack of range.  I want to roleplay a happy, go-lucky Geralt.. wah, wah, wah... His VA never says anything in a happy go-lucky way.  Guess what... that's not a sin for that game... and NEITHER is not offering PASSIONATE a sin for this one.  I will concede that the "emotional" tag could have been given a more suitable name (since people do associate emotional people as having extreme emotions).  It's really more a reserve or empathetic queries and responses like "Is my sister going to be OK?" or "That's terrible" as opposed to the more factual queries an responses such as What's the prognosis?" or "Give me the navpoint."

Well, then, I guess my answer will have to be the execution.  Assuming this was in fact intentional.

Now I don't mind a degree of humor, when it's intentional.  I thoroughly enjoyed Liam's personal mission, it it was by far one of the silliest moments in the game (deliberately serious, at least).  But in moments where Ryder is cracking wise when it seems really inappropriate it becomes, as you say, a mess.

For good or bad, I do think that at least some of those moments where Ryder can come up with an inappropriate joke ARE intentional... to show that he/she is only 22 and slips up now and then... isn't so poised that he/she says the exactly right thing in every circumstance.  Jokes and jokers often fall flat because they are ill-timed.  I think it was a way of making the PC fallible... something that the fans requested as I recall.  The Angara will often make fun of Ryder because of those lines.  For example, the scientist on Havarl will respond to one such line with "strange jokes aside..."

You claim to want "options for everyone"... but that simply cannot be done without "every range of personality" because everyone wants to play a different personality.  You're staking claim to the "emotional response" as being sadness... but what about anger? what about just collapsing and passing out? what about denial? - all are common emotional responses to news of a death.  What about the player who wants to play an emotional Ryder who hated his dad... who might instead lash out angrily with "What, you think I cared about that a-hole?"  TBH, I've seen a lot of people have the emotional response to hearing of a death as being "shock" (deer in the headlights)... detached and seemingly unemotional... particularly when surrounded by strangers (it's called maintaining a public face).  They can break down later or become angry later... when they are left alone with their thoughts.  My own mother reacted to the death of my father precisely that way.  She spent two days robotically going through making all the arrangements and only broke down after the funeral was over... and she cared about my dad very, very much... never went out with anyone else for 40 years.

Also, regardless of how you feel about Witcher games... TW3 is very commonly held up as the current gold standard for RPGs.  That's why I used it as an example (personally, you know I don't like TW3 either... haven't played the other 2).

I accept that we can't have every possible reaction.  But why can't we have 3-4?  Why only one?  Why is wanting a choice the same as wanting everything?  Why is wanting to role play as anything but a wise-cracking action hero being unreasonable?  I posted earlier four very different reactions to the same emotional event in a recent Bioware game.   It can be done.

This is probably the biggest reason why I only two playthroughs of MEA while I have over a dozen for DAI and DAO.

Ryder is a limited character whose dialogue options all feel samey for the most part and unlike Geralt, Ryder doesn't have an interesting personality or emotional depth to invest me in their story. Say what you will about Shepard and the flaws of the paragon and renegade system, but at least they gave two highly different archetypes to play while Ryder just feels the same no matter whether your logical, professional, emotional or causal. 

Well, Ryder is supposed to be a 22 year old millenial whose completely unqualified for his/her job and only got it because of nepotism and being fused with a magic AI, so I guess it only makes sense that they'd be spineless.

Or it could be the change of writers after the game entered production.
It was the lead writer btw, Chris Schlerf, not some intern.

This kind of thing never ends good and although you have examples were the change benefited the story, you can count them with the fingers of one hand only.

Let's be honest and admit that almost everyone in the Mass Effect series sound and act like their from the 21st century instead of the 22nd. Peebee talking to Drack about superheroes is just one example of the writers not capable of writing characters that come from an entirely different time.

That said, I think its rather blatant that Ryder's personality was supposed to appeal to millennials, which as I millennial find rather offensive because of just how many millennial stereotypes they had.

Honestly, I think you have a point that it is kind of hyperbolic meme. That said, given that the game prevents you from seriously taking Liam or Peebee to task even though their fuckups are extraordinary, I think it still has merit as a criticism.