It is good to see others starting to think systemically about the problem and possible solutions. This is something I've been doing since around 2017, seeing it coming since about then after already a long period of Systems Engineering consultancy, more than twenty years.
To me it is an energy problem, though polycrisis, hyperobject, etc all apply also. The climate, economic, and political problems are all symptoms of the energy problem, in my estimation.
The view you described is useful, by formal system Engineering derinitions also The usual recommendation is each view should only have a handful of elements with relationships between elements clearly defined. I think this is something like the principal you described.
What we end up with in a good analysis is a collection of simple views rather than a single complex view, it's normally a sign of inexperience to try to cram too much into a single view, like the one you are critical of. But Davidos attendants are not short of funds, they would not have made the mistake of employing inexperienced systems Architectural specialists to produce the diagram you identified. So I agree with you the object appears to have been to confuse.
What it boils down to, is our handling of energy.
Conventional science has been a little negligent, and I include myself in this, by failing to mathematically sign energy in and out of Earth, according to whether it is added or subtracted from Earth. And this is awfully important. So much so that when we do it, it becomes crystal clear that we are actually in a much more dire position than most of science can even swallow, far less communicate.
Religion does a better job imho, by this being actually something like the biblical end of days.
But whilst clarifying the problem, it also reveals, nay dictates, a solution, a single way out of the mess, which becomes clear knowing also technology like hydrogen.
The solution is to move completely to solar, and to create from that as much as we humanly can.
Hydrogen then becomes apparent as something we can create to functionally replace fossil fuels.
The thing standing in the way of this is profit, which is the mechanism we use to leverage the work done to extract energy from Earth, all forms of energy from Earth.
All of that is destruction by E=MC squared, the conversion of things that are not already heat, to heat, therefore adding to temperature.
The opposite is use of the energy of the sun, the more of this that can be put to use by us or nature, the less there is to become heat.
Notice we already removed a significant portion of nature that once did this - we converted it to heat.
The catch is that using the energy of the sun, which is fundamentally gifted, pushed to us, we can only monetise it by money issued for free, ie a solar indexed stimulus.
This is the only way we can effectively transport that energy and the product from it effectively to all needing it.
Notice this is creation.
So creation, use of positive energy cools.
So we might see now Earth is really just like a battery, trickle charged by the sun, and we've almost discharged it.
The characteristic inside a battery is that we wouldn't really detect we are getting close to discharge until suddenly we find the charge around us thinning out, then it drops exponentially to zero.
The charge in this battery is life. The higher temperature indicates life significantly lost.
Life is energy put to use as something other than heat.
Life is positive energy put to use.
It is simply not possible to increase life by using negative energy, all we can achieve with it is more destruction, more discharge, more heat.
Hence why you are noticing the rate of temperature increase is accelerating.
The physical limit is the flashpoint of what is left of life, if we let it go that far.
All profit made meantime, just takes us closer to flashpoint.
It's pretty urgent we get our heads around the full truth of this.
All talk of renewables, net zero, carbon mitigation, etc are all just obfuscated ways of trying to profit from the problem.
Profit can't fix it, profit only ever addresses symptoms of problems, never fixes them, beacause it can't, it ceases to exist if the problem is fixed, there is no more profit to be made.
See how religious it all starts to look?
I think this is a big issue, that science can't research anything that looks remotely religious because itself is mostly done for profit. Even if an organisation or individual claims they are non profit, the fact remains we still have to exist by receiving more than we put out because we have energy overheads overheads, even if only bank charges, or the energy we each need to metabolise, about 1 50 Joules per second 24/7, we all depend on a chain of humans to receive this, and it all leads back to being extracted from Earth.
Seen in this light we realise its a pretty hellish problem, but we also see the only solution.
The technical efficiencies of hydrogen etc, and the cost of it in the conventional economy don't matter when it is all powered by mathematically positive energy, in that circumstance, it becomes for free, and whatever we can put to use of it is infinitely better than the most efficient process done on negative energy,
I've been through some of this with Indi but so far he doesn't seem to agree much, or if he does, he doesn't let on. Hey-ho, common sense has to come around in the end, as I've found on many previous projects surrounded by skeptics :)