Considering the amount of literature I have found and read on this topic so far, covering 30 years of analysis specifically in the context of productivity driven by investments in computer technology, and using data covering 130 years of economical statistics, its methodology and limitations, I am deeply skeptical of any 3 point dismissal of this problem as being easy to explain away such as your own.

I said elsewhere, I don't have any beliefs about this problem, I am deeply fascinated by the difficulty involved in productivity analyses and especially by the question of missing productivity that we should expect to be driven by the huge investments in computer technology that have been observed over the past half century - and quickly accelerating of late.

It's a fascinating topic and I intended merely to point out that quantifying computer technology driven productivity growth is a hard problem. Any facile conclusions one way or the other are suspicious in my view.

It is not clear to me at all that building and buying more computer and data centers and software is an obviously good investment that should only be increased because it raises productivity. That is the discourse, but there is a very conspicuous lack of hard data to support that claim, and lots of pages going back and forth and proclaiming at the 'conclusions' sessions of papers and chapters that the problem is indeed hard and the work done so far is at best inconclusive.