As I've explained, the point of these books is to give an overview of the early history of the entire Federation, not just a single crew. They're supposed to be broad and inclusive in their focus and to resonate with events and characters in the later series. It's a feature, not a bug. If you don't like it, don't read them, but the approach I've taken to these books is not thoughtless or accidental. I put a lot of thought into deciding what established characters or ancestors to use and not to use.
I didn't see anyone accusing you of being "thoughtless" or the choices being "accidental". You chose to overload (in my opinion) the book with continuity references and some simply didn't agree with the choices you made.
From the Malurian to the Orion triplets to the "Mutes" to the wormhole to the catwalk to Dax to Kirk to Paris not much in the book felt "fresh".
I also don't think being critical of the book on those grounds is "thoughtless". I also don't think that a book about the founding of the Federation is required to hop from one wink-nod to the next.
Like I said in an earlier post, I thought they had the right writer for this particular material and that it was a slam-dunk that this book was going to be great. The book seemed to be entertaining for most, which is all you can really ask for as an author but also I wouldn't dismiss the criticism.