Roddenberry, Jefferies, and Justman also put a lot of thought into many of the technological aspects of Star Trek that never made it to the Big screen or the small screen as "plot Points".
Wow, is that a real interview? That's some far-out reasoning and justificating (yeah, I know that ain't a word, but I guess I have 'creative license' the same as the next guy.)
If they've put that much ... I guess you'd call it 'thought' ... into this gravity well/warp calibration thing, it must be a plot point. Otherwise, you'd be thinking they were only coming up with these remarks to deflect complaints that they were pulling this stuff out of their nether regions .... oops!
Most big Star Trek fans embrace this attention to detail, but you seem to not want Abrams and co. to have the same attention to detail.
Here's the way I see some of the complaining fans:
Roddenberry's attention to detail: "brilliant! He built an entire universe in which to tell his stories.
Abrams attention to detail: "he's backpedelling and deflecting complaints."
There's a difference between creating a backstory designed to sustain for an indefinite number of episodes and creating a backstory for a single feature film (admittedly designed to spawn others) that is supposed to make the general public want to see Trek. Figuring out that warp engines need to made in a gravity well sounds awfully damned specific for a detail that would only otherwise be in a writer's bible (something you don't create for a feature anyway.)
Also, while the original GR bible for Trek has plenty of good stuff in it, I by no means think that is the crucial ingredient for making the show work; that lies with the execution, specifically by Coon, though Black and Lucas and Justman and Fontana contributed massively as well. GR could have spent five years writing the most interesting bible, and if the captain/science officer dynamic had been with Jeffrey Hunter and Leonard Nimoy, there would be no trek cult or bbs or probably even fifteen episodes playing on TVland.
I don't think your criticism is invalid, given the variety of complaints and complainers; just that it isn't applicable to my comment.