It is absolutely true that the above is much closer to what Jordan would have written, but I for one don't believe that giving less than that is some sort of fundamental writing flaw. In fact, that over-detailed, tangent-ridden POV style that Jordan wrote—full of repetition, reinforcement, sideways thoughts, explanations for every action or potential action, and observations of every little detail—was one of the things I personally enjoyed the least about his books. From my perspective, they slowed the story down and essentially took their slow time beating me over the head with every little thought that fluttered through the characters' minds.

Now that's obviously the way Jordan wanted it, and a valid writing choice for a POV-oriented story, but there were many, many times where it bored me half to tears. Personally I enjoy getting to put more of my own interpretations and speech inflections into dialogue and narrative when I read it. I can't be the only one who feels that way.

Saying that Sanderson is not writing it the way Jordan would have is completely fair and a valid criticism. But saying that it's "pathetic" and that he's "not doing his job as a novelist" is, I believe, taking it too far by applying your own personal tastes to the art of writing in general. You obviously prefer to read the more detail-oriented style, and that's fine, but I don't believe there's anything inherently superior about it in general. A good novel doesn't have to bludgeon you with a character's every stray observation and thought in order to be effective. An author doesn't need to have complete control over how his or her characters' actions and words are interpreted and viewed in order to write a good story, and I for one prefer writing that leans a little in the other direction and gives room for the reader's voice to take part in the story. I find it more engaging and immersive.