I honestly think the issue with the divide between theorists and mechanics enjoyers in limbus company is that some people treat it as a game while other people treat it as a story
When you play a traditional story-driven game the narrative (for the most part) is fixed. There are certain actions that cannot Be undone, and the plot is linear, bar maybe one or two major choices at the end that result in a different ending. There is a certain level of agreement that X event Happened, because we all played through it, right?
Here's the thing, though: When you start to base your game off of works of literature, you inevitably draw in people who play the game for the story component, not just for the mechanics. This results in a group of people who use their understanding of books to analyze a linear story, and some of them are interpreting the game as having multiple "endings"- i.e., that the story draws on multiple themes, each of which can be examined in order to find a greater meaning. Canto 3's focus is on humanity versus inhumanity, but it also draws on themes of disability, prosthetics, and eugenics. Canto 5 is about moving on and severing the ties that bind you, but it can also be interpreted as a metaphor for growing up, because the way Ahab treats Ishmael (and the rest of the crew) is very reminiscent of how children go from having one big authority figure in their life (Adults) to being able to choose their own future in life. (I would even go as far as to say that Ishmael and Queenqueg's relationship in the story is very similar to a young coming-out story in that it adds tension to Ahab's control over the crew, but that's a story- and a theory- for another day.)
Now, is that the intended meaning of Canto 5? Absolutely not! I don't think Ishmael is a child, and I absolutely do not think that Ahab should be let anywhere near a child (rip Pip lmao). But that interpretation is still valid, because it is a way to understand the story and metaphors used in Limbus. Even if it's not the "correct" interpretation, I am adding value to the story by presenting an alternate way to Look at it and relate to what is being said. This is how theorycrafting works, or, in more fancy words, this is how academics and English majors create their essays and arguments. It's why we can still be talking about books like Crime and Punishment hundreds of years later, because there's so much that the author Doesn't say in the book which can be talked about! And it's how Project Moon is able to create Limbus Company in the first place. This is a game that is a derivative of multiple different stories, itself having a main character who wrote a book that was basically him and famous people all going to hell together. It's all connected!
Where am I going with this? Well, I bring this up because I saw a fantastic post the other day talking about how Hong Lu's growth and trauma in Canto 8 can be interpreted as a metaphor for SA, and while many people in the comments were supportive of the analysis, there were also some people who disagreed based on the grounds of "well Project Moon has explicitly stated they will never talk about SA, so this interpretation cannot be true!" ....which. Sure, that's certainly a way to interpret what is being said to you in the game. But subtext is there for a reason. It feels borderline insensitive to see a group of people relating to a specific experience and go "it's not in the text, therefore it doesn't count" when the themes of Limbus Company are broad enough to be seen as metaphors for a whole range of things. Especially given the way that certain characters talk to Hong Lu and how his concerns are dismissed. There is enough evidence to make that claim, even if it's not the Focus of the work itself.
This is not the first time I've encountered people who, for whatever reason, refuse to look beyond the game and try to form their own interpretations of the characters. I've seen people disregard other theories or ideas on the grounds of "this isn't supported by the game's text", taking only what is explicitly being said at face value. And it seems to be a pretty common experience! But I think we stand to lose a lot if we just focus on what's being textually said. Because if you only focus on what's being presented to you, you miss out on the fact that Dante... Isn't a reliable narrator, like at all. Just look at the way they focus on Heathcliff and ignore Gregor, or the way they completely missed Outis' scheming in the Backstreets Intervallo. If you refuse to engage with the subtext, you Will miss predictions and deeper understandings of the Sinners, and you might find yourself confused at the upcoming turns and twists in the story.
My point is: If you see something in this fandom that you disagree with, please think twice before immediately jumping on the bandwagon of "PM didn't write that into the game therefore it's not canon!" If you don't think that particular theory is true, there is nothing stopping you from simply moving on. People are allowed to interpret a piece of media however they want, and going around telling people there is only one "correct" way to interpret Limbus Company does the fandom as a whole no favors.