It's gotten to the point where at least once a week I have people try to gotcha me in defense of a game that has obvious flaws. When I'm one of the only people actually reading the writing in these games with paragraph upon paragraph worth of reviews on a lot of games here.
In my opinion, critique has to take the developer's intent into account. If you, as the reviewer, interpret a scene differently than the developer intended, then it's up to you to motivate your reasoning and explain where the developer went wrong.
About Dora, I think it's made abundantly clear to players that she has an agenda. Her look after the MC refuses to go with her betrays an emotion that is probably more complex than his rejection. After all, no matter how many times you rejected her that day, she'll always give the same look. I think it's reasonable to assume that her emotions have more to do with her plan not working out than the rejection itself.
Mio saying she has a good feeling about the MC is no different from Calli saying a similar thing. Some people exude kindness or trustworthiness. This is something that, I think, the dev established through interactions with different characters. He's soft-spoken and has a disarming personality.
Olivia: Others have said it... The 2nd episode has just been released. I'm sure the MC will be interested in how she found him once he realizes that Olivia is one of the people he saved. I think this feedback would be more fair if we were further along and this never came up again.
Gemma: Personally, the LI I have the least disbelief for. They've been working together for years. That said, I think it should've been established how long Gemma has been flirting with the MC. It looks like it's a recent development, but that would make her extremely forward. So I'm assuming she's been at it for a while.
Sylvie: Yeah, I had the same frustration. I then spoke with the dev to check in, and now I think she's behaving perfectly in character. We just haven't seen enough sides of her to understand her yet.
This game goes a bit against the grain by letting characters' actions speak for themselves and allowing actions to speak louder than words. My biggest frustration with AVNs is how devs often neglect to show instead of tell, and that's something this game does extremely well.
That said, I do think some more telegraphing or internal thoughts are necessary to convey the MC's experience and intent (context) to players. Subtext is great but also very dependent on a player's own experiences/baggage or even mastery of the language. A story needs to occasionally reset the subtext so it doesn't build up too much. If players are on the wrong foot, this alienates them. A reset, with (for instance) the MC saying why he's performing a certain action, brings everyone back on track.
An example of this is Theresa. The MC goes along with her, knowing she's stringing him along. We're not told why, so we're left to guess if he's just careless or maybe even too confident about getting into a potentially dangerous situation. Or perhaps we think that he's infatuated with Theresa and just going along to hopefully get his dick wet. His behavior there isn't what we'd expect from a skilled vigilante. Guys like that don't go into a situation blindly, at least if they want to live.
Luckily, at the club, the MC does speak up and confront her about what they're doing there. Otherwise, after events unfold, we'd collectively facepalm and ask how he didn't see it coming.