I may not have a STEM background but I can say that whether or not the river can be salvaged, the fact is every extra dollar in maintenance costs that goes to the ROA complex is a dollar “wasted” when churned through a modern MBA mindset which working in corporate America I can help recreate.
Your post is a nice summary of how these kinds of decisions get made, but there's a missing bit of context. Metrics/KPI are defined relative to the goals that a company has. Many of the examples you give
assume what the right goals for a corporate manager to have are. For example, should Disney optimize the design of the park for the sale of DVC units? Or for guest satisfaction? Hopefully those things aren't in tension but you gave a nice example of when they might be - if I have to leave the parks and return to my DVC unit to relax, maybe I had a slightly worse day.
It also speaks to the larger issue here - which is Disney used to think of itself as a storytelling and themed entertainment company. It empowered its designers and artists to make decisions and became the industry leader as a result. The problem is that, over the last several decades, large American companies have increasingly specialized in a single market or service. For a diversified media conglomerate like Disney, this has taken the form of a focus on franchising IP rather than storytelling (or hospitality). Disney isn't a company that sells theme park tickets, hotel rooms, or DVC units. Disney isn't a company that makes movies (family, animated, or otherwise). Disney is a company that
owns and markets intellectual property. This is what Iger was, and arguably is, unusually good at. But it is, at best, a break with the exceptional strengths that Disney had as a company before Iger and that won over many people who are fans of the company. What you see on forums like this one is largely a split between fans of Disney's design driven era and Disney's IPs.
I won't claim there is an exact parallel, but there is another company that famously embraced this philosophy and has suffered the consequences of misidentifying its core competency. That company is Boeing. And like Disney, Boeing became an 'aviation services' ("airplane IP") company rather than an engineering company. The consequences of that decision have, literally, been tragic. Although the stakes for Disney are nowhere near as extreme, companies that rely on poorly conceived metrics to measure performance towards even more poorly conceived business goals, end up - at least in the case of Boeing - with what may charitably be described as uncertain futures.