He did, but he's now gone, and just because "one path" as you interpreted was how Satoshi wanted the way things to work, doesn't mean it's what's best for the longevity and the sustainability of the network. As I posted, he's not a "god" and with all due respect, he can also be wrong.
Well , segwit and LN was the path according to core , do you consider it the right path if satoshi was wrong ? How many more years for the btc community to understand that both models were failed ?
LN devs admit that LN has many problems and can't work . Segwit din't provide any meaningful solution ( see mempool and fees ) .
If core goes to a hardfork and increase blocksize would you consider them the authority you should follow or you should reconsider if following core was a bad choice ? Because the way i see it a hardfork is imminent .
If the path taken is to maintain decentralization, network security/not risk it more attack vectors, and have Bitcoin to continue be robust, then yes, smaller blocks are better. Because if you're merely talking about increasing transaction-throughput but sacrificing decentralization, then that's not real scaling. Real scaling means increasing transaction-throughput without sacrificing decentralization.
Plus I believe I'm not the only person who thinks it's the right path. Check the network transaction volume, number of holders, and the market value. Plus all of those forked blockchains claiming to be the "Real Bitcoin" are treated like the Flat-Earthers of the community.