There are two major disagreements I have with your analysis.

The first is your firm break from Marxism and materialism into idealist analysis. Administrators in socialism perform a socially necessary form of mental and managerial labor in coordinating society. This does not make them a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class. Again, ownership of production is the primary distinction between workers and owners, not whether one coordinates other workers. The administrators in the CPC are overwhelmingly proletarian, but you divert from Marxism here.

Secondly, the actual, practical experience of China paints a wildly different picture of society than you describe as its supposed shortcomings. Even according to western firms like NIRA data, perceptions of democracy are incredibly high:

This is no accident. Policy in China comes from the bottom-up, in a process called "Whole Process People's Democracy." It then gets interpreted by the CPC, who relay and simplify policy with a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, which then gets feedback and is implemented. Democratic centralism makes policy quick when necessary, and gradual when consensus needs to be built. It's why policy in China has radically adapted over the existence of the PRC, far more so than other countries, while maintaining more political stability.

In essense, you critique China from a liberal perspective while maintaining Marxist phrasing. That's why I invited you to analyze the article and critique it, so that we have a common basepoint.