It does. It massively takes away from it. I gave my counterexample in my first post. Imagine if a careless person goes through life being careless, and then they finally have an epiphany about how being careless is bad because they are now facing the consequences of it. Then they get rewarded for being careless. It majorly detracts from it. There's a whole page on TV Tropes about Broken Aesop.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAesop
You're missing what I'm saying.
The author has control over how the story goes. We all agree on that. Regardless of things like advertising and government censorship (which does exist in Japan, but is a completely separate issue), the author basically has control over the story.
The author, therefore, can try to say to us, as readers, that Gojou has, in fact, learned his lesson and accepted his shortcomings
even if all the actions and events leading up to that would make a real-life person not, in fact, learn the lesson. The author has the ability to make Gojou learn the aesop even though the events make it a broken aesop.
And that's what I'm saying is happening here. In a real-life scenario,
maybe a real human could learn the lesson that they can't be perfect. Maybe. In my opinion, what is more likely is that they'll have "aesop amnesia", that they'll just forget the lesson that was supposed to be learned because the events worked out in their favor.
That is what makes it bad writing. When you say that you understand that it looks cheap, that is an implicit understanding of these reasons. You disagree with me. I understand. You say it's not overtly cheap and give your reasons.
But if you understand and think it is reasonable to call this cheap, then you can understand the rest of what I wrote and find it reasonable to call this bad writing, even if you just disagree. You can consider my position reasonable even if you disagree.