BAD levers, as with almost any aftermarket part, change the dynamic of the platform. At that point it is no longer platform “X” it is something different, that requires retraining and new horizons of platform understanding. If you’re still trying to run the platform like you did in its previous state, and you have issues, that’s not the platforms fault. Of course there will be failures. If you buy a box of screws because someone says they’re better than nails, would you still use a hammer to put them in? I agree with @switchpod in that if you’re not going to learn it, take it off, get rid of it, and go back to what you know.
I started on AR platforms, had a brief stint with AK’s and even had to lug a G36 around or a bit. Once I got over the fact that they’re not AR’s, all my “issues” began dissolving. Eventually I felt as proficient with my new platform as I did my previous. My wife and I have three significantly different cars and two significantly different motorcycles. I don’t complain that I can’t drive my hunting Jeep the same as my wife’s fem-nazi Subaru.
I too started using BAD levers when they first came out. I used Magpul, Phase5 and Tactical Link. I agree that not all devices work on all rifles. I did a lot of mix and matching, and trial and error. I too still have some unused levers in my parts bin. Some rifles kept the BAD some did not.
My grief with the BAD levers, and other bolt on parts, is their requirement to be bolted on after the fact. Having had an extensive background in different platforms, I was spoiled by the integrated features provided by the Swiss and German engineers. About three years ago I swore off ever buying another AR, and set out to design my own. I wanted everything that all the foreign “boutique” weapons provided, but I wanted them with the familiar ergonomics of an AR. Every part on your rifle has a tolerance of failure, some smaller than others. Those designed specifically for your rifle have even a smaller chance to fail. If you have to bolt a part to a part, then you have to deal with tolerance stacking. That could essentially double the failure likelihood of that function.
Respect it for what it is, and don’t latch on to visions of grandeur of what it isn’t. I’m in full support of anyone removing anything that is grieving them with functionality issues. I’m also in full support of anyone taking advantage of a technological evolution to enhance their performance. I’m not really taking sides in either way, just agreeing with both points of views.