The novel is written through the narrative of Kodaka. Himself is a neutral observer (and critically so, if not always verbally expressed). On the whole the balance of character flaws are maintained.
The anime being a different medium cannot be narrated therefore it's up to the viewer's interpretation by character's actions. Direction did not maintain balance and even then interpretations can differ.
What we have here is a mixture of audiences, those who primarily exposed to the animated form and those who have seen both (and many LN readers who've read the series before the anime therefore less influenced by it). I believe some's interpretation is wide off the mark as I could not follow the logic but that's just my opinion. When you see such leaps of logic, arguing is a pointless exercise.
It's also worthwhile noting whilst right now summaries are widely available, people can read these differently. I'm fairly aware of Kodaka's narrative given it is in itself describing Kodaka's character (and his view is just his view, which may differ widely off the mark to reality). But such interpretation of writing styles are best observed when reading as a novel on long sittings rather than chapters by chapter as released by the translaters.
Funnily enough many of Yozora's 'flaws' are also 'moe' points, which sets her apart from a somewhat more generic character like Sena. I suppose I'm too much of a hipster
I really need to get down and draw a diagram of the character interactions in this series - and then it will be reasonably obvious which characters are moving the plot.