Musings on dndnext monster design

So today came the day I have been eagerly awaiting - A Legend & Lore article about monster design. Unfortunately, I was quite underwhelmed when I read it. I think it lacked a lot of info that could/should have been in there,

Link for article at wotc.com

Now, I really like that Mearls use the 2e MM as a point of reference. While I was never a huge fan of the binder format, I still think that 2e had the superior monster manuals, with the hardcover 2e MM being the best. I do prefer some aspects of the 4e monsters, though, but more on that later.

I also like that he explains about the choice for stats, "level" and so on, but I think he skips a lot of steps, ignoring a lot of explanations that would be relevant. I mean, we do not get the full monster, only some thoughts about the story and story elements, and the stat-block. So one must assume the stat-block is the important part, the part that we are supposed to talk about.

• If the Hook Horror is roughly the same "level" as the troll from the playtest, why does it have 72 hit points less?
• How does he arrive at an AC of 17?
• What is the math behind the +5 to hit? 
• Is the 1d10+4 damage per hook attack arbitrary? Does he follow some sort of equation?
• Speaking of the hook damage, it might be smart to explain just exactly when the auto-damage is dealt. Because it could be on the players or on the monster's turn.
• Why is it a STR check DC12 to get out of the hook. The Hook Horror has an 18 STR, so shouldn't it be a DC14 check?
• How about the automatic 2d6+4 from the beak attack? 
• How is the damage derived?
• Would it have been different if the attack wasn't an automatic hit?
• Will this be the standard for monsters? As in, will monsters who grab have automatic hits? 
• If not, why was this a special case?

Now, had the questions above been answered, I feel it would have been a much more relevant article. Something in which we could have sunk our teeth.