Interesting framing. Of course, you are the only one who could justify whether it's worth your hard-earned money. But let's look at your criticisms a bit closer:
"Few of their lenses actually enable 30fps many are 20fps or even less"
True, but many hit 25fps, and most of the lenses you'd want to max out burst rate--135GM, 70-200GM, 100-400GM, 200-600G and the exotics of course--do come close to 30fps if not hit it. I don't see it as Sony's fault if third-party lenses don't hit the max burst rate.
" and if you shoot RAW at those high fps you are tied to lossy compression."
This is also true, but with 50MP, you're not losing anything significant. To the point, you're going to have more resolution than the R3 can ever hope to achieve, and I haven't heard any complaints about a loss of DR or variations in color fidelity.
"Most people will be fine with the buffer, but on the occasions you hit it the lock out and the time it takes to clear are not consistent with ‘pro’ level tools."
If you say so. I've never tested, but there has already been someone in this thread to question the validity of this assertion.
"The AF from the R5 is consistently rated as ‘better’ by actual users"
Oh, come on! No one is going to accept this assertion without some independent support especially when the readout speed of the A1 gives it a tremendous advantage. Personally, my R5 has let me down on multiple occasions due to its inability to keep up with fast and erratically moving subjects. It also can be slow locking on. These are areas for which the stacked sensor was designed for. A1 users I know wax poetically about how the A1 locks on and is very sticky once it does. So, please excuse my skepticism about this claim.
" and the resolution difference between the A1 and R5 is similarly considered by users to be a non difference."
True. I've never used the A1, but I have used the 60MP A7r IV. I struggle to see a difference between that Sony and the R5. Most say that you need to (at least) double the resolution to see a difference, so 5MP is trivial.
"Given all that and the fact that the R5 is considerably cheaper than the A1 I’d find the Sony a very hard sell"
YMMV. For me, the fast readout, lack of rolling shutter, stickiness of AF in tracking fast and erratically moving birds, and zero blackout and no lag had me tempted. But in the end, I prefer Canon and Nikon ergonomics, and I wanted a pro-style body. But I was definitely tempted.
"and an impossible tool to justify purchasing."
Again, YMMV. I'm willing to wait for the Z9 or R1 and--perhaps even more importantly--whether a company offers a compelling prime like a 600mm pf/DO f/5.6. Whichever company comes out with this lens first--even if it's Sony--will get my money for both the lens and body.
So, unlike you, there are circumstances for which I can justify purchasing an A1.