I'm really enjoying our exchange, and it does look like we agree more than disagree at this point. Here's where I think we're landing:

We agree that physics first can be a good approach, but there are real impediments to its practical implementation, which my original post didn't sufficiently address. Those impediments include:

1. Making sure the physics first teachers actually know and teach deep physics content, instead of merely jumping from one fun activity to the next. This is not an easy thing for non-experts in physics (which includes many administrators) to assess.

2. Collaborating across the sciences to ensure vertical alignment, so the skills gained in physics first can be effectively put to use in chemistry and biology.

3. Recognizing that less mathematical maturity means less content coverage in an intro physics sequence, and thus physics first is not a replacement for an upper-level physics class in junior or senior year.

Do you think this summary is accurate?

If you're willing to privately message me on LinkedIn, it'd be great to connect in reality. Here's my profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elissa-levy-4b4bb627/

You put it well when you said, "the internet is...the internet." I do take a risk by blogging as my actual self.