But I really don't understand why these ROM devs are not more clear about this requirement. They are fully advertised as "all you need is a pixel phone" which is false. I think a lot of the user base is wealthy enough to go to the google store and buy a new phone in cash. It is the only explanation. The forums have frequent threads of people who are having problems installing due to this.

Yeah for real. I was just trying to confirm whether my belief (apparently, not knowledge) that carrier locking and irreversible e-fuse bootloader locking a phone like the Pixel would be a violation of consumer law here. We did have some major changes ages ago, but its been years since I've personally had to worry much and its still ambiguous grey area stuff with irreversible e-fuse protections altering / downgrading trust attestation and widevine support etc being common.

I'm off on this tangent to say "oh, wow I see what you mean" because I'm done with this search, the results are an endless repetition of "pixels are always unlockable."

I didn't end up editing my post cuz I realised your warnings start far enough up the chain to be visible. I appreciate this conversation though cuz I am guilty of believing and promoting the "pixels are worth the cost but you don't have to pay google for one" line without hesitation in the past.