What I don't like about OS is how they usually degenerate a game from being more read-based to being more setplay-based. This doesn't happen all the time, but it happens often.
I've never liked situations where one side has zero risk for high reward. Even in oki situations, there should be risk, albeit heavily skewed in the attacker's favor. I didn't mind the meaties in VF, because while they were no-risk, they were low-reward as well. To get paid on a knockdown you had to take some risk.
I was going to express a similar distaste with my original answer about OS, but decided against it after some thought. Overall, I was unable to pinpoint what I specifically disliked about it that was exclusive to OS.
I wanted to say that I didn't like them because I liked forcing players to make (hard) reads. But choosing the OS to use is arguably read-based as well, at least assuming that they each only cover a limited range of options and have particular weaknesses. The read for what the opponent might try to do still needs to be made, to avoid using the OS that'd lose to what you think they'd do.
It's hard to say whether the reads game is more shallow or deep with them. On one hand, making a read against conventional non-OS options feels a lot more shallow, but selecting your OS against an opponent's OS seems like it could be quite deep. There's no denying that players who don't know or use them are at a distinct disadvantage though.
That said, I think it could be interesting to see a fighting game with an "anti-OS" interpreter, like giving the worst / slowest attack when trying to overlap inputs, forcing a guard drop with no attacks coming out when pressing buttons during blockstun, etc. Honesty: the Fighting Game.