I understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately I fundamentally disagree with your last two points.
In my opinion, Characters should be people and should never be props. A story lives or dies by the characters in it. Treating them like objects or secondary elements is how you end up with characters that are easily replaceable, unrelatable, and flat. You can have the most intriguing setting ever, but if your characters have no depth or agency, no one will care. Stories aren't about complex geological structures or architecture. Stories are about the decisions characters make, character development, and the exploration of ideas. You can't do any of those things if your characters are just props.
Now with that being said, characters don't have to be carbon copies of reality. They need to be relatable; they don't need to be reality.
And characters don't need a hundred different character traits to be relatable either.
But on the subject of world-building. It's fun, it's necessary, but it doesn't need to be the main focus. You don't need to reinvent the wheel every time you create a new world. Unless it's relevant to the story, no one needs to know the ins and out of complex aline politics, the ingredients in a bowl of cereal, or how elves in a fantasy world use bows. You can answer those questions if you want to; no one is telling you not to think about things and be detailed. But ask yourself if the questions you're answering have any relevance because a book that focuses more on world-building than the characters in that world often loses its readers' interest.
Do you want to read a thousand pages about where a fight is happening, or would you like to read a thousand pages about the actual fight happening? The setting and the world matter, but if the characters are secondary, you might as well be writing a travel magazine, not a book.
Of course this is all just my opinion, but I felt I should offer a counter point.