I was a kid and I understood what they were going on about with the political aspects of the story. It wasn't complicated at all.

Maul was a marker of Kenobis skill and story. His story was almost as important as Anakins after all. It also was a subtle integration of tragedy tied to Anakins story, for if he became his mentor, then perhaps things would be different.

I think Anakin in 2 was fine. He was portraying the seeds of the dark side and demonstrated the how tough his life was and the struggles to adopt the Jedi way. It clearly defined what his priorities were in life as well, which became his undoing when manipulated in 3.

Dooku was badass and he was a taste test of what a sith lord could more accurately be. More importantly, he was a demonstration to anakin of someone who turned away from the jedi council based on ideological grounds, not merely as a bloodthirsty killer bent on power.

I was also a fan of rots. I don't really find the reasons you've gave all that comprehensive. I get its your opinion and that's cool but it just doesn't make sense. We might as well be watching something different. What's more, your take is pretty similar to all youtubers bouncing around the same topic.