It's harder to apply "count the rows" to the whole unit as the proportions of e.g. tables are different. I'd need to know the actual measured seat pitch for a given seat type to know if anything has been "crammed in".
I can't help you with the 196s, but on a 197 the non-priority airline seats are spaced at 820mm intervals and a table bay takes up 1840mm (both figures from the seat plan supplied by TfW and reproduced here).
I found the seat better that a 195 but not as good as a 175.
The seats are more upright than a 175, and a little taller, with fractionally less leg room.
I once measured the space between the rows in the airline seats on a 175 which was 84cm, so a class 197 would have 2cm less legroom if they were using the same seats. Given the Sophias (assuming they are the same awful rock hard things as the 800s have) probably have thinner backs than the class 175 seating then the difference in legroom is probably small as you suggest.
If the central section is longer then the end sections are shorter, obviously. And the end sections in all of them have 6 rows. A coach with 21 rows overall has more legroom than the same length coach with 22 rows. Where they’ve put the doors doesn’t change that.
I agree, where they put the doors doesn't change that. Other things like the design of the cabs, equipment cupboards, luggage racks, toilets and the width of the doors might well change that though.
Ultimately the majority of the travelling public won't have this obsession with seat alignment to windows. TfW bought and designed the interior of the units to what they needed.
Leisure travel is supposedly recovering better following the pandemic and several TfW routes are marketed as scenic (in my opinion the Cambrian Coast is one of Britain's best in that regard, and TfW's plan is to reduce the provision of perfectly aligned table-bays from (I think) 15/16 on the 158s to 4/10 on the 197s (based on the seat plan above)).
