Thanks.
I noticed that the examples expanded/contracted a bit in the two different solutions, which gave me this idea -

Contriving size of subject to remove AA & avoid banding:

Hi LavaLevel. Thanks for being gracious about it - I was a bit excessively harsh.

I watched it again, & I think what I found least accurate was the way in which the brief history seemed to jump straight from early systems like the Atari 2600 & NES to the present-day indie developers appropriating pixel art. Many would consider the 16-bit era to be pixel art's golden age if there was any, so it merits at least a look-in.

Overall it was a respectable take - well-researched, decent interviews, well-edited. The comparison to videogame music at 5:15 is a good point, they are analogous, & benefit from constraint & bring out essential qualities in a similar way.

My main gripe is that I think it would have benefited from a more thorough timeline - or at least a few more examples plucked from the Mega Drive, SNES, PC Engine, & Arcade. I think if this was my initial introduction to pixel-art I would be a bit underwhelmed because of the examples used.

For a documentary dedicated to pixel art, that video contained surprisingly little attractive pixel art.

There were a few brief excerpts from skilled artists, but "Passage" seemed to overshadow much of it - putting the merits of that game aside, I would be hard-pressed to find a worse example of the methods that distinguish competent pixel art.

Some bits that jumped out at me:

[...] and part of me feels like it's a bit of a cheat as well - you know what I mean? Like - I'm not a particularly good fine artist so there's something nice about distilling it down to pretty much I suppose its most basic level of information [...]

Pixel-art: the expedient solution when traditional skills fall short.

The pixel movement's strength lies in its abstract simplicity.

As opposed to representational or complex pixel art, which I guess doesn't lend strength to the pixel-movement? Or is outside the pixel-movement?

Or maybe I'm a crank.

Looks like he adopted the good part of the edit - the more subtle outline - & disregarded the parts that didn't work - the scribbly cloth & sorta pillowy fur (although the edited arm looked good).
I don't think it reflects his attitude to criticism.

Few suggestions:
Clean up your lines.
Rotate his left ear to face us a bit more.
Bend his left leg or adjust pose - I don't think you'd straighten your leg like that unless you had your centre of gravity above it.
Reshape left foot.