Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.
However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.
It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.
I 100% agree with you about the EOS R not being suitable for action. But I'm curious why you think it would not be good for situations that call for IS...If the subject is moving around a lot, the IS helps only a little, in my experience. (Some claim not at all, but that is total nonsense. Think it through--reducing motion at one point helps reduce the total amount of motion blur in a still image. If the camera shakes AND the subject moves, the blur effect is compounded in most cases.)
What I mean is, if IS means so much to your photography, as it does to me when I'm taking portraits or detail shots, how would the R be a problem for these cases? My problem with the R is that it just doesn't offer enough versatility--it really works best for static and slow moving subjects, the ones most helped by IS.
Then again, panning IS might be kind of wasted on the current R.
Sigh. We really need a leap in EVF tech!!! In the meantime, R for portraits, dSLR's for everything?