...there are many that bought this model because it was advertised as the most accurate replica of the studio scale model to ever be offered.
The problem is that that is pure marketing speak, and as I'm sure the marketing department hoped, people read into that all sorts of things that were never actually promised.
"Most accurate replica of the studio scale model to ever be offered"
really allows for quite a bit of latitude, and in no way promises or even implies "100% accurate to the filming model", despite many people swearing it does because they really want it to.
How many studio scale models of the Falcon have been offered to date? If it were, for argument's sake, this and the MR version, and the MR happened to be 3% underscaled and missing approximately a dozen parts that this one has - it could be argued that this is "the most accurate studio scale model ever offered". That doesn't mean it's entirely correct, just that it's reasonably more correct than anything else offered.
It seems the people I tend to see most bent out of shape and outraged over the problems are people who have never built a model before, and in all probability were expecting something better than the MR Falcon with next to no effort at less than half the original price.
It certainly has some problems, and I'm not giving it a complete pass on them - but I think the biggest problem it has is the unreasonable expectations of a small (but vocal) number of builders.
Then again, by now I've been around the block a few times and have long since learned to never take a company's claims about their product at face value, and to focus more on what
they don't say and how they don't say it than to assume what they are telling me is precisely what I was hoping for (IME, this approach works well with politicians too).