"broken" and "requiring an extra click" seem like two different things to me. Although I understand that you're not getting what you expected, so my judgement here is subjective.
It may not be obvious to users why their site is broken. Of course, at that stage they may blame the site unless they know why the site appears that way in the first place.
But it isn't always obvious how to get to the site from an AMP page.
My point was that "broken" feels like the wrong term. I think the site owner should be blamed if content the user needs is not either on the AMP page or accessible with an easily found link.
> I think the site owner should be blamed if content the user needs is not either on the AMP page or accessible with an easily found link.
Hmm. If AMP participation were voluntary, I would agree, but given how necessary it is to SEO ranking, Google deserves a large portion of any blame for broken content - They do not get a free pass to enforce usage of a protocol, but dodge the consequences of its implementation (which will always involve friction and some breakage).
