To that point, if the 250 would have had been built with the same design intent as a 5G4R then, in my opinion, it would be a better solution. The 1GR mated to an A750 is an truly incredible combination when it comes to longevity and durability. But at $65K buyers are cross-shopping the likes of Bronco, Ranger, Colorado, Canyon and expect some pep in the step. One could argue that the 1GR isn't competitive today, yet the 5G4R still sold strong into it's last months with there being more of a shortage than excess inventory to dump. But marketing put a turbo-hybrid in the 250 to achieve the trifecta goals of cost, performance, and fuel economy while also giving price justification to the GX with it's V6. I don't believe this was the same design priority as with previous Land Cruiser generations or with the 5G4R.
You call it speculation, I call it wisdom. A simple port-injected NA power plant has fewer failure points. Add the Turbo, most likely life-limited to 150k (and what happens when it fails and starts sharing metal with the lubrication system?) Add the complexity of GDI + port injection. Add the complexity of hybridization. I just don't see any way there isn't higher potential for issues and cost later in life. The only argument is where the risk lies. Is it at the $1k end of the spectrum or at the $20k end? Does it strand you on the trail or just result in a cost hit?