I think it might be easier if I just requote the Legal Argument excerpt from the OP (really wish the OP would just be shown at the top of every page) as I have a feeling that some people aren't reading it:
Some people have suggested that it may be due to laws, such as the Child Pornography Prevention Act (or CPPA for short), against child pornography for some of these changes, some citing laws such as 18 U.S. Code § 1466A, but I personally have found this to be untrue, at least in regards to US law.
If we refer to the Supreme Court Case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, where it presented the question:
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), prohibits, inter alia, the shipment, distribution, receipt, reproduction, sale, or possession of any visual depiction that "appears to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(B) (Supp. V 1999). It also contains a similar prohibition concerning any visual depiction that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(D) (Supp. V 1999). The question presented is whether those prohibitions violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
In the Supreme Court's ruling, it stated:
The statute is aimed at hard core child pornography and does not apply to innocuous images of naked children. Nor does it reach drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting youthful persons in sexually explicit poses.
As we have discussed, there are several ways to disseminate educational, medical, or artistic works concerning a child's sexuality without violating the CPPA: The Act does not cover drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings that depict youthful-looking persons in sexual poses; it supplies an affirmative defense to persons who disseminate visual depictions involving adults who may appear to be children, provided that the depictions are not promoted or presented as child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(c) (Supp. V 1999); and the Act does not apply to visual materials in which sexually explicit conduct by children is understood to be taking place, as long as the sexually explicit conduct is not itself visually depicted.
PSO2 would fall under the umbrella of "drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings," and PSO2 does not promote or present itself as child pornography. Thus the legal precedent set by Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, would mean the CPPA would not apply to PSO2.
Now 18 U.S. Code § 1466A does state:
Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting
So it does include "drawing[s], cartoon[s], sculpture[s], or paintingp[s]," but it also requires that the person(s) in question knowingly produce, receive, or possess with intent to distribute child pornography. The key words being knowingly and intent, as Sega would not be considered to be persons who knowingly or possess intent to distribute child pornography if this were to somehow be brought up in a court of law. Simply by having a policy against such depictions they would have a defense against such accusations as that is how it works with Symbol Arts. So there are no legal issues regarding short characters.
In regards to the cutscenes, if you actually watch the removed cutscene, the camera does not show Al's hand when he accidentally grabs Kohri's chest. Furthermore, the cutscene is in the game's files; that's where the dubbed voice lines came from. If there was an actual legal issue with the cutscenes, then they wouldn't be in the game's files. Any thing within a game's files constitutes as part of the game's content as far as rating boards and legal entities are concerned; an example of this would be Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and its infamous Hot Coffee Mod where the sex scenes were found within the game's files; thus the game was re-rated in rating boards across the world and banned in countries where said content is inappropriate. Simply by having the content within the game files, even if inaccessible during normal gameplay, constitutes as distributing said content as it is downloaded with the game.
The removed cutscene is overall tame and there are far more erotic things. An example would be Kohri's outfit during the end of Chapter 4 of Episode 4 and throughout Chapter 5. It is designed in a manner to resemble a BDSM outfit and specifically draws attention to her chest and groin; the outfit is far more erotic than the bath towels that the girls wear in the removed cutscene. Also remember that the game is rated M and there are far more explicit M rated games; take Senran Kagura for example. Yes, Kohri and Hitsugi are only 16, and thus are under the age of majority in a number of countries (US included), but so are many characters in Senran Kagura, again as an example. Senran Kagura goes uncensored on every platform except for Sony's and is available in many countries. This, combined with the aforementioned reasons, makes it unlikely for there to be any legal issue for the game to go uncensored. The more likely culprit is western cancel culture.
So yeah, there really shouldn't be any legal issue with the game going uncensored.