I think it was a little more complicated and a little more simple. First there was the culture clash. On the issues in question, both sides were right, and both sides were wrong.
Lee is also more complicated. As a tactician, he seemed to be brilliant, but, then he was going up against idiots, and how much of a factor Stonewall Jackson was is open to debate. but when Lee was opposed by Meade, who seemed to be a competent field commander, it was a disaster for Lee.
What is not generally known is that Meade was in command of the Army of the Potomac until the end of the war, and that Grant was General-in-Chief. In Grant, the North found someone who could win battles, and, even more important, someone who understood modern theater warfare, which was a particular weakness in Southern commanders. A good question is whether Lee was infected by that weakness, or if he was not free to act as a theater commander until the war was almost over.
“when Lee was opposed by Meade, who seemed to be a competent field commander, it was a disaster for Lee.”
After Gettysburg, Meade was out-thought, and out-fought by Lee throughout the fall. Meade also benefited greatly from the preps made by Reynolds, before Gettysburg.