If (and that’s likely) other features than Autopilot contribute to Teslas killing and injuring fewer people, we must compensate for them to judge whether Autopilot is a net benefit.
All my line of argument is trying to adress is how long until self driving cars are 'ready' which directly relates to how capable they are today. The data I looked at suggested somewhere above 'drunk driver' but below 'school buss driver'. That seems like an extreme range, but they are each human levels of competence. Which is different than they are being portrayed and IMO a sign they are very close to ready.
While the points you bring up are meaningful, we let people drive without those safty features. So, in terms of policy it seems like an ever higher bar, as for example automated breaking systems and lane following raise the bar above human competence, but again are not being installed on older cars.
Which... doesn't really make sense. The safety features are part of the package. You can't get the dangerous part without them.
No cars are sold with a big blob of naked unprotected lithium ion cells. And no cars are sold with autopilot but not high-end crash protection.
A feature being dangerous in isolation is not enough to show that it lacks net benefit.
If you're measuring whether the actual experience of using autopilot meets the prevailing standards by which we judge "safe enough" as a country, you don't want to correct for those first three.
Especially the "the cars are new and safe overall" factor. Correcting for that is like "correcting for" the fact that all the dangerous lithium ion cells are carefully packed and armored, and coming to the conclusion that sitting in a Tesla is less safe than sitting in a bonfire.
It makes the arguments a lot worse when people don't distinguish those two questions.