If you actually read the articles, you would know full well that your solution is definitely NOT input randomness at all. They even specifically call out the “but can change the odds!” mentality as inadequate.
Ooops, obviously I was too tired and confused with all the phrasing.
So I see input randomness is "random challenge player can see and make decisions to solve"
while output randomness is "presss a buttton and XXX will come out at OOOO odd."
It seems like my suggestion is more like output randomness which is "bad".
Another aspect of this can be "what" is being generated randomly: a direct result or a target player will be making further decisions to "predictably" achieve. Under this aspect, input randomness is nothing more than a "scroll slot machine" instead of a "money slot machine". It's putting larger chunks of gameplay achievement/progression into the prize list rather than some small direct result. It's throwing a list of predictable incident at players in unpredictable order. I see this "randomness in predictable overall progression" may be a rather rigid game designing method.
I think the author is ignoring some critical part in output randomness otherwise: how the odds were determined.
For instance, an easy way to determine hit chance in RPG game is attacker Acc - defender Agi + some constant.
So if you want to hit enemy easily, you should "predictably" train and increase your Acc and you'll be getting overall better at the way you expected.
Some similar mechanics were already introduced in SS: salvage, ship recovery, etc.
Players' effort can change the "prize list" before you go up and pull the lever of the "slot machine" and that's how just about every RPG game implement and success.
To sum it up, both type of randomness have pros and cons:
Input randomness basically sticks on predictability. At first glance it seems perfectly fine for player facing "different but solvable challenge" all the time but when player skill reach certain level it's going back to laboring the game for the fact that they know how to deal with just about every circumstances.
Output randomness means, most of the time, nothing is guaranteed. Even if you made theoretical best moves you may still fail to achieve certain objectives that "if the rolls were better you could've made it". A common workaround is making a "least outcome" no matter how bad your rolls are so you'll be achieving the goal if "you're good enough". For example, in a test you get 40% of the point by rand (0,40) and the other 60% by your own knowledge. Scoring 50 is a pass: lucky ppl only need 10 more points while the good students can pass the test with no problem. It can "aid" some not-so-good players to actually "win" at times while keeping "good" players take victories "as granted". You know you should "study hard" in order to pass the test and that's the part player "moves" kicks in to alter the "result odds" (pass/fail ratio) and make the game generally acceptable.
Playing a fair dice can be frustrating, but if you’re able to load you dice, things can get interesting.