Since the merge Ethereum has had net negative issuance. Ethereum's yield is not coming from dilution. The network is profitable, the profit is distributed to token holders and validators, plain and simple.
I didn't say anything about dilution. Ethereum's yield comes from (I'll try to follow your terminology here) the gross issuance, which looks to be the green gauge called "issuance" on that site and is a positive number. Fee burn is unrelated to that and floats around randomly based on network usage (issuance was net positive a month ago) and GP didn't ask about it so I didn't think there was any reason to add confusion.
Ethereum´s current issuance is 0.55% (654K ETH per year on a circulating supply of 120M, source: https://ultrasound.money/). This is split between the validators which are now around 13.7% of the network (source: https://beaconcha.in/). Resulting in a yield from newly minted ETH of 4%.
The other 25% of the yield comes transaction fees and MEV.
On top of that the ETH consumption through the burn more than compensates the newly minted ETH. As the network is net deflationary (source: https://ultrasound.money/). You can think of a company that pays employees partly with stock options but has also a buyback program. If the buyback program that comes from its ability to generate profit more than compensates the newly issued stock, the employees pay in stock is not self-dilutive.
What I'm basically getting at is that, if the network is not seeing net issuance (i.e. roughly flat or even negative), then the newly minted ETH is real yield. By the simple fact that nominal yield - monetary inflation is positive.
Since the merge Ethereum has had net negative issuance. Ethereum's yield is not coming from dilution. The network is profitable, the profit is distributed to token holders and validators, plain and simple.