Did you read the entire Tech Crunch story at that link I provided? Clearly, you didn’t. That story proves you dead wrong.
I challenge you to prove your claim in light of the facts provided in that Tech Crunch story. You won’t be able to do so because his story clearly states he fulfilled every prompt correctly, yet, Google’s lousy recovery AI proved dysfunctional and even entirely dismissive.

You say you worked entry level customer service for Google.
In what region of the globe was your customer service role positioned?
Was it scripted to follow only the catastrophically limited help pages verbatim? You know those are a total joke, right?
Regardless, did you ever formally contest your training material and company mentorship when the materials they provided left you unable to successfully recover rightful access to user’s accounts for those users who desperately needed you to do absolutely everything humanly possible to see it through to successful recovery?
Or did you only think about the paycheck and therefore only complacent compliance which subsequently left those displaced users permanently handicapped without any access to their personal intellectual property?
Do you even care enough to be heroic however possible when company policy demands complacency?

Why are you even attempting to suggest something so pathetic as to give up? How dare you.

In fact, thank you for helping me realize I should be reaching out into a community and space populated by ex-employees of Google who were senior level personnel when they decided to leave Google for higher ethics elsewhere.

You didn’t read the details or you’re misunderstanding something. The only phone number relevant in this issue is the GVoice number. GVoice doesn’t function according to the terms you just suggested.

And I’m being taxed by someone who claims to have read my citation of experience both with 1) the account recovery security AI at the recovery login page, and (2 extensive exhaustion of third-party, overseas Google One tech “support”, both over the phone and through so many emails they don’t group to the service ticket — which after thorough exhaustion of over thirty of those disconnected proxied script-followers, that extensive observation has enlightened me as to the foundational corruption on which that entire subcontracted business model is designed — and, yet, who insists I’ve not exhausted “official channels”.
You refuse to see my due diligence?
Likely, you insist on misinterpreting it into something you probably think shouldn’t be considered outside standardized routes.

You know Alphabet, Inc is ridiculously corrupt and worse, yet, you refuse to expect that outcry as inevitable, commonplace, and beyond necessary.
So perhaps you’ll grasp my correctness in finding your wrongful interpretation of “you’re trying to go through other than ‘official channels’” as quite unarguably unhelpful and also wrongfully accusational. I stated I exhausted the “official channels,” yet you want to imply you yourself are entitled to audacity to gaslight me as though to imply I did not do the things I stated I did in fact do? Maybe you prefer to excuse injustice?

Google is basic. The issues it creates have rippled into catastrophic tsunamis of hoards of unfortunately-annexed innocent users. Those issues echo harmonics throughout those call centers. So it takes an apathetic, complacent, and caustic sadistic employee-slave to continually discriminate against paying customers by finding ways to use the subcontracted company policy against callers instead of proactively and ambitiously search out facilitative Google agreement terminology that could, can, and should be demanded one their end to fully rectify a customer’s naive and undeserved mishaps that are all too often directly influenced by Google’s inadequate onboarding prompts which do not ensure proficient user-end competence.

It’s very clear Google wants the mishaps.
The communications conglomerations throughout the corporate tech industry are deliberately wrought with convoluted inefficiencies that effectively present and aesthetic of support.

Perhaps you aren’t experienced and perceptive enough to recognize a lie when a Palo Alto’s headquarters of a major world corporation’s third-party, non-homeland subcontracted call center overseas is staffed by scripted employees who wrongfully identify as Google employees when Google or Alphabet, Inc is NOT stated on their paychecks.

I encourage you, instead, to imagine bright ideas instead of dwell and emphasize on defeatism. I have a sense of urgency about this that I value in terms of intellectual property, documented memories, social connectivity to family, loved ones, and professionals. To me, that’s a life of opportunity spanned over twenty years of user data submission to Google. I was naively-trusting of the cool-aid, and I even evangelized it, up until the day I discovered Google refuses to listen to 2FA mishaps they promoted into such devastating quantities. I see clearly now, and so should you.

Further, instead of wasting effort points on attempts to qualify a checklist of basic approaches I’ve completely surpassed myself, perhaps it can be clearly read in my notes of my fulfillment of the “official channels” that this post is evidently not nearly an initial strategy, so, again, you’re discrediting my dynamic experience insultingly.
I carefully worded the post title because that’s the exact level I’ve reached as a worthy ambition.

• "Some possibilities I can imagine may be ___________,”.
• "There’s a slim chance that maybe _______, but it will need to be presented with substantiation of _________, which may be possible via ________ . . . " or
• Similar fiercely optimistic routes.

===============

If you dare to disagree, I challenge you to study the Google Community Forum’s hoards of similar reports. If you still want to gaslight, I strongly encourage you to call your cellular network provider’s customer support department about a significant technical issue with their service you have experienced. Really, everyone who pays for lucrative technical services should absolutely do this, even as a primary exercise in the shopping process. I encourage at least twenty to fifty of those calls, all very closely considered for recognition of systematic behaviors and recurring default language. My challenge to you is to do whatever it takes to get the issue permanently corrected. With that goal, the objectives are to closely observe the recurring experiences imposed on the support-seeker all the way through to successful resolve of the technical issue. I guarantee everyone will come away with more questions and greater concerns than that of going into the process. Notate and record as much of the runaround specifics as possible because it will be realized it’s programmatic and even socialized within the employee culture of that workplace and occupational field.

You’ll find the solutions often necessitate a juxtaposition requiring your own ingenuity, resourcefulness, and fiercely creative optimism of alternative exploration far beyond their default response models in interpersonal communication with the “support” personnel to get them into candidly honest human-to-human communication about the deficiencies in their approach models — to fully acknowledge and consider honest ideas from you, not the “fully trained” tech “support” personnel. They won’t provide the possibilities within their reach unless you gain their understanding that collaberative extensions to coworkers, other departments, “higher-ups” as they like to call them (since they often also like to wrongfully claim that there are not any management teams in place), and also conjunctive implementation of formal complaints and grievances simultaneously in effect by that point are necessary.

At that point of obvious negligence, dismissiveness, or incompetence, it’s my hope and encouragement you’ll recognize and understand that you will have intimately discovered the haphazard nature of economics-based international corporate business models and the deep ground-level deliberate inefficiencies driving dysfunctionality throughout economies, and certainly throughout your own user-end and customer experience.

Then I strongly encourage you to do the same diligent pursuit with a better phone company. And another, and another (policy shopping if necessary), calling multiple subsidiaries and all the major companies until you’ve come to recognize they all follow the same monkey-see-monkey-do act of systematic, policy-excusable discrimination disguised in superficial conservative politeness, programmed employee training models, limited and irrelevant scripted responses, refusal, denial, unwillingness, and administrative office tools that enact dead-end runarounds into an inevitable annex.— such as redirects into unidentifiable disconnects caused by the discriminative call moderators.

I’ve done it enough to see it in oversized tech companies and several of the large tech companies. Midsize tech companies provide the best customer service while they still provide unadulterated products, services, and features and want a following. In the early 2000’s, all the major companies excelled in customer service until they prioritized lucrative economics models over the inclusive startup ethics. Then it’s all about By that point, I think you’ll be ready to attempt Google One’s personnel to recognize a terrible reality running rampant worldwide.