Basing difficulty on invisible die rolls does not strike me as an ideal way to implement challenge. It discourages learning from trial and error by leaning too heavily on random elements. What the game ideally needed was better puzzle design that didn't require random elements to be challenging.
I felt it actually worked so well precisely because it was random chance - it encouraged the player to be elastic with his moral compass. Once you start getting out of the mindset that you are saving everyone and start cutting corners, the way its puzzles are structured starts making sense.
On its intended difficulty, it's not a game about finding the perfect sequence. It's a game of "where can I compromise my morals to get by and feel the least shitty about it". It clicked to me early on when I made a promise to be sexist and not be aggressive with the female hostage. I ended up finishing that chapter by shooting her in the leg so I wouldn't have to handle both kicking her so she wouldn't get too cocky and negotiating with the SWAT team.
It's kind of brilliant, because most games rarely make your moral choices to be something else than sociopath/saint or Hitler/Stalin, let alone forcing you to be practical about the shit you do. It doesn't appeal to everyone, but to me the choice for the game to be about so many random elements that they make you cut corners to even finish a segment is genius.
I agree with you to an extent, but then you get randomly shot 3-4 times in a row on the first, second, or third round and you basically wasted 2 hours because of RNG.