Of course, a wargame is still only as valid as its inputs; and that requires some human evaluation...
But if we get any consensus out of these various Pacific War timelines, it is this: It really takes very little in terms of a pre-war point of departure to generate markedly better results from the Allies. It really was just about leadership, not some technological breakthrough, vastly more resources, or a very early departure. And by leadership, you don't even need military geniuses, just reasonably competent ones. The Pacific War we got up through the spring of '42 really was a huge Japan-wank, and so much of it was because of terrible, blundering Allied leadership - some of it in Washington and London, but especially by MacArthur and Percival.
The Americans are still going to lose the Philippines. But Galveston putting Parsons/Ike in charge, and the decisions that followed, is going to push back the final defeat to well into the summer, and seriously tear up Japanese timetables. Honestly, even replacing MacArthur with Ike on December 1, 1941 could produce markedly better results.