This gets to the point.No, criticism of Civ7 consists of analysis about preferred gameplay styles im balance vs roleplay, immersion breaking of various mechanics, railroading vs sandbox, etc. People discuss lack of polish, or reversion on various game mechanics, or whether certain perceived problems were false complaints or valid pain points in need of work.
When people question why the criticism exists and it's broad appeal, people revert to statistical analysis to prove the validity and general agreement of that criticism. No one is criticizing a game by saying it sold poorly - that doesn't even make sense because sales numbers isn't a thing inherent to a game and a game can be good or bad independent of sales.
Some aspects of Civ 7, poor UI, bugs, lack of polish, etc. are BAD, no one likes them and everyone would be happy for them to be removed
Other aspects of Civ 7 are liked by some people and disliked by others (and other people don't care)
Taken as a whole, Civ 7s features don't get as many people buying it or recommending others to buy it as Firaxis/2K would like. Therefore they are going to be changing things.
So what should get changed... bugs should be fixed, UI improved.... however
Some people are unhappy that the maps are too small, should Firaxis
A) Recognize small maps was a mistake and make all maps 2x bigger
OR
B) Put in an Option for bigger maps.
They are going for option B because smaller maps isn't bad game design, some people like to play on smaller maps, some on bigger and the game design can accommodate both (with some tweaks)
So for some things they need to add more options. (degree of map balance seems like a good thing there)
For other features, they need to think carefully about....
What aspects do people actually like/dislike about this... can we change it so that it isn't worse for people who like the way it is but it is better for people who dislike it (ideally you make it better for everyone, but no change is going to do that)