A lot of this seems pretty obvious, but there are two things that caught my eye.
Defense is averaged? So you can have a rotten defender on one side of a zone going against a great offensive player, but the game is going to think he's better than he is? that sounds really lazy.
Second, in a 3-2, PG should be taken by itself just as C is (correctly) in a 2-3. If you don't have a PG that can cut off penetration in a 3-2, you are going to stop nothing. Real world, most of the time you'd probably play the PG sagging off a bit to make sure of this. If a ballhandler gets penetration against a 3-2, there's a very good chance of giving up a bucket because there are only two defenders really in a position do anything at that point, and in modern offenses, one of those may be dragged away from the lane by a stretch 4.
In a 2-3, a pair of guards can form an odd front and control penetration, but in a 3-2, the PG is by himself in that and the offense really has a choice as to how to attack it -- to try to get penetration with a lead guard, or to use a 2-man front (which then forces the defense to make a choice on how far upcourt it plays the wing players in the zone).
IMO, the 1-3-1 is superior to a 3-2. The way to beat a 1-3-1 is a vulnerability in 3-2 as well, but it's more effective in other ways.