I suppose I should try to clarify why I'm asking. I've seen several commentaries on various platforms about the Stanley Parable, video essays, etc. The most common interpretation I've seen is that the game was saying there was something wrong, violating, about the act of criticism itself. A few other things after got me thinking. In particular, a Bethesda dev's article about Starfield that amounted to "people have no idea what the intent of a creator is or why things are like they are in the created work so (politely) shut up, please." That made me reflect on the fact that the people interpreting the Stanley Parable were also people making content for money (articles, YouTube video essays, etc). And then it gets more complicated when you factor in legitimate concerns about parasociality.
Viewing post in Question for whomever.
Like any artform - once it exists in a medium where an outsider can see it, the outsider's opinion isn't inherently invalid for for not being 'official'™. There can and will be personal biases in any interpretation. This is expected. By sharing discourse amongst critics, there is great transformative power with facets like social commentary and marginalised groups finding a source of representation.
We have death of the author. We have subtext in everything that can possibly be the subject of analysis. We even have dorks who will try to rule 34 and/or ship every character in their own fanfiction.