Yes, this is maybe the nub of my skepticism, where simple changes have an apparent large effect on a microorganisms community.
For me this, there is a potential large bias in the data we collect from social media. I think we might be dealing with the following type of data. 100 aquaria are started with dry rock and 10 started with live rock, There is a higher number of reported observations of X in the dry rock data than the live rock data. The problem is that we think the large number is the incident rate of X. The number of X observations with dry rock divided by the number of dry rock aquaria is actually the incident rate (I know that you have not overlooked this). This is why I don’t find the social media reports of new dry rock aquaria experiencing dinoflagellates convincing evidence that low nutrients cause dinoflagellates.
You say tomato and I say potato
Microorganism communities are terribly stable to change. When I hear about examples like above, simple changes resulting in rapid change, a red flag goes up. Also, such changes don’t seem to be so effective in other aquaria.
For me the “low nutrient causes dinoflagellates” claim is tentatively in the same category as “Prime, CloramX, etc, reduce the level of ammonia in water”.