I find it odd how many people are acting like Matt straight up lied about having Deirta’s typhros in mind for Essek’s motivations originally, and I think it’s related to a greater lack of understanding of canonicity in actual play. We see this same lack of understanding have the opposite effect when people badger the actors about ships that never happened and then act like “yeah maybe if things had gone differently” is hard confirmation.
Some people appear to be coming at the typhros reveal from the angle of “Matt meant that in C2 Deirta 100% had typhros to this degree and from his first appearance to Jester and Fjord’s wedding Essek has had the exact same motivations as he does in the show, but if you look at this interview Matt did during the campaign he says something else,” and so they arrive at “he’s lying to retroactively justify this change that I don’t like.” A much more likely explanation if you’re approaching the situation in good faith is that Deirta’s typhros was part of his original concept for Essek, and informed Essek’s early motivations, but Matt moved away from it later or decided to focus on other things by the time he gave the interview answers people are holding up as sacred gospel.
Many things in actual play, from PC motivations to NPC backstories, exist in a kind of Schrödinger’s canon—the player/GM may initially play a character with a certain motivation or fact in mind, but change their mind about it later. Until it is revealed to the audience, it is neither canon nor non-canon. (I’ve also seen this referred to as soft canon.) But it informed their performance in the moment nonetheless! And this adaptation, in which they’re changing a lot, is the perfect time to explore aspects of characters that were previously soft canon.