Of course there can be artistic and/or creative merit in how you edit the initial takes: it should be obvious that one person might edit it and produce a thoroughly unmusical result whilst another person with superior musical sensibilities could produce something worthwhile. I'm afraid, however, that I can't ignore the question of how much enhancement has gone on: it seems to me that is an intrinsic hazard of the process being undertaken. Life is unfair as well, because it's very difficult for you to answer that question convincingly.
The other problem you have, as I see it, is that you have effectively almost unlimited editing capability and with that in mind some might consider it reasonable to expect that - if you have sufficient musical insight and editing skills - you might produce something which is a truly artistic interpretation and worthy of comparison with great recordings of yesteryear. I don't think you've done that (though I accept that what constitutes the above is a subjective matter): in part because in honesty I don't think the qualities of tone and colour are good enough. I suspect that pedalling may be an issue. I don't want to dismiss your efforts out of hand simply because of the context in which they have been made, but whilst there is merit in what you have done, to my mind there is also something missing.
Call me a philistine, but I don't think there's much at issue. Midi-editing has as its goal the making of an interesting, convincing, and aesthetically pleasing final product. That's not unlike the goal of a piano performance. So the end product, one might say, is the same.
What is clearly different is the PROCESS or means of arriving at the end-result. Pianists analyze and practice at the piano
to realize a particular conception (to put the process in very general terms). Midi artists also have a conception... but they arrive at it by a fundamentally different process
: manipulating note intensity ("velocity), duration, pitch, and tempo.
Many pianists say "Midi is a Cheat." Well, that's only the case if you try to pass off midi manipulation as practice at the piano. The latter is, in my own view, more difficult, much more time-consuming, but also more rewarding and fun. (That's a personal judgement.) It has, I think, higher social status for sure. So it is very tempting for midi-artists to suggest that much of their work is simply playing in the piece at a high standard, at the outset. The midi-editing is 10%, at best. That may be the case. But, quite significantly as you suggest above, it may NOT be the case. And to be honest, once you start midi-editing, the slope away from the initial recorded performance is very slippery. As well, it is really IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL, on the basis of the finished product, how much is midi editing and how much is the midi-artist's pianist ability.
Of course, the really important thing about midi-editing is that one need not have ANY piano skills at all. One can always step input a Chopin Nocturne, note by note, and start editing towards a convincing mock-up from there.Ergo: piano technique is a sufficient condition of making a midi interpretation of Chopin (for example) but by no means a necessary one.
The conclusion follows easily that where a site like this one (and others) exists to discuss the PROCESS of making music at the piano, that discussion cannot benefit in any necessary way from a conversation with a midi artist. To the extent that the artist is a pianist by training AND exploits some of the relevant principles of piano performance in his midi-editing, there can be useful discussion, I suppose. But the all important physical aspect
of technical analysis, so central to piano technique, cannot of course be discussed, because the midi-artist does not physically train at the piano or make technical changes to a piece at the keyboard. His or her "keyboard" is at the computer, not at the piano.