I checked the review engagements. Reviewers 1 and 2 are willing to give borderline accept/weak accept. Even for Reviewer 1, the authors had the final say and reviewer 1 didn't respond further.

Reviewer 3 and 4 are giving weak reject/borderline reject.

Reviewer 3 was only ultimately hung up on the paper not providing a formal proof for some aspects (seemed to have implicitly accepted that other concerns are addressed). In the end the authors claim that they provide the formal proof, but reviewer 3 didn't respond further. Reviewer 4 didn't engage at all.

So I don't think it's "ridiculous" to say that the reviews are outdated. And ideally, we don't want the meta-reviewer to just average scores (otherwise there is no point for a meta-reviewer, just use a calculator, and then accept papers based on scores - would simplify the whole pipeline if we really want that).