Eh I think you have too strict geographic symmetry criteria. Historical geography is not fair and by its nature it may feature many small cultures in one area (Europe), one gigantic culture which is hard to split in any way (China), or nothing (Siberia). Yeah I wouldn't like Europe to have more than like 35 - 40% of all civs, but it is also a relative amount and we dont know the total amount of factions in the next game, so we have no context to calculate precise amount of factions anyway. After all, why exactly can't we have both Armenia and Georgia, or both Colombia and Argentina, or both Ashanti and Benin in the same game, provided Europe is like less than 40% of all civs and all major parts of the world have something. What really matters are diverse, fun, great cultures of history good for a video game, not spreadsheets calibrated for the perfect spatial configuration of shapes in topological space.
2. Andalusia - if we are to have a "Moors" civilization, it should probably be focused on the Maghreb side of the equation, not the Iberian one that's already saturated with Spain and Portugal. Morocco, or Berbers, yes, Andalusia, no.
Tbh Eurocentrism is about cultures, not strict geographic criteria. The series has stupidly few Islamic civilizations (in civ6 out of 50 civs we got Arabia, Ottomans and Mali), so can't we just add some very spectacular ones. Andalusia was honestly one of the most important civilizations in history that hasnt been already present in series (next to Italy, some Central Asian guys and India/China splits) sooo...
7. Benin - See Ashanti: I'd like to see one or the other, having both would probably be a little much.
Aren't they separated by like 1000 kilometers or something?
12. Hebrews - would love them, we all know the politics of it are...what they are.
Hebrews, Judea, Jews and Judaism are not "political", modern state of Israel is certainly controversial to put it mildly

but almost no one would like to have it in the game for one reason or another anyway. Idk why can't we add
ancient Judea and Jewish people to the game - the only people who would be offended by that are antisemites and idk,
ancient Judea denialists? And we shouldn't cater to them very much.
15. Kievan Rus - Not politically possible right now for dumbfoundedly obvious reasons. There's plenty enough Russian history (and arguably even enough Ukrainian history via the Cossack) to include both without stepping into that hornet nest.
Yeah I agree and I would totally replace it with Ukraine option. KR would simultaneously
infuriate both nations while overlapping with obligatory Russian civ.
17. Mexico - a good candidate for a Latin American civ, but condemned, I think, to remain behind Argentina and Gran Colombia because we have far more interesting civs to focus on in that area.
It is worth noting that literally half of Mexico is outside Mesoamerica cultural zone, while Maya covered not just Yucatan but also Guatemala, Belize, Salvador and west Honduras, so why not? It is extremely different culture and era anyway. The question worth pondering is 'would you accept Mexican culture, unchanged, if borders were just cut to exclude Maya and Aztec - if yes, then it is kinda sad to ignore such great culture just because of some overlap and modern political boundaries.
18. Mississippi (Cahokia) - We don't know enough about them (no language, no leaders, etc). City state they are, and city state they are condemned to remain. Very disappointed that this was the only North American native option on the list.
The problem with Native American tribes is that there are so many of them and they are all similarly small so I had no idea what to even include in the poll. They's probably require their own poll. And I also didnt want to make a "just whatever Native American civ" option.
19. Mughals - As I have stated elsewhere, I am against confusing "state" and "civilization". To me, the earlier Mughals are part of whatever civilization we might consider the Timurids (a dynasty, not a civ) to be - Turkic or Mongolian or whatever - and the later Mughals are part of the Ganges plain Indian civilization that also include the Maurya, Gupta, Delhi Sultanate, etc. Do I want them better represented in the game by having Mughals leader of appropriate civilizations? Yes. Do I want Mughals as their own civilization? No.
Frankly at this point everything can get into this series as a "civilization" (hello Australia and Canada). Also it is worth mentioning that if we become that precise about meaning of that term, we shouldn't allow almost all Native Americans into the game as technically they dont fulfill the basic criteria, and yet we still want to have them in a game; so if we can have stateless, cityless tribes as civs, why not Mughals as well, who seem closer to the original concept of civilization
24. Sri Lanka - I'm not particularly for or against them, I really don't know what the case for their inclusion is
Distinctive civilization with 2,500 years long history and great importance for the history of Buddhism

especially as civ series tend to get what, one Buddhist civ per game?
26. Switzerland - Not as bad as Belgium, but that's still not pretty far down the priority list. Far too much risk of being a cliché "banking and neutrality" civilization.
I am not that keen on Belgium myself, but I'd take it any day over Swiss 'centuries of neutrality and peace, no grand narratives or drama of any way' mild civilization. Honestly I would replace both those options with something else if I remade the poll now.
28. Timurids. A dynasty is not a civilization. Ottomans get away on the technicality that they're the Turkish civilization by another name (but should really be named Turkish), but the Timurids are a part-Turkish (already in game), part Mongol (already in game), part Persian (already in game) civilization.
Your attempt to circumvent that contradiction doesn't works, because Ottomans by the same logic was part - Turkic, part - Persian, part - Greek, part - Balkan civilization; they had a ton of non Turkish blood in their veins; an enormous amount of their top elites and top military units were all sorts of minorites from the empire; and it is hard to argue "this is overall Turkish civ" if is specifically excludes ancient Turks, Seljuks, Rum, Beyliks and modern Turkey and just focuses on - Ottomans Empire. If Ottomans can get in, so can Timurids, Mughals etc, they operate on exact same rules.
30. Zimbabwe - Second only to Swahili on my african priority list, and a much, much, much, much, infinitely, humongously better Southern African civ than freaking Shaka and his memetic Zulus.
Yeah, Zulu are the most boring entry in civ series. They only got into the series as a staple because of enormous ignorance on African history in 90s, as if there weren't like 20 or 30 more impressive and varied Subsaharan civs to choose from. They always have the same leader, unit, building and brute force gameplay profile, because they just
cannot have anything else because their state was too damn small, short living and unsophisticated to have potential for much more content in a game like this.