Can't really know what the agent meant by 'lack of involvement'. Lots of room for interpretation and nuance there. But there's no question TP can handcuff the team by his decisions and actions regardless of how they are described. Totally agree.
I think things like setting an internal cap or not allowing retention is within the purview of the owner. It's semantics but I don't consider that meddling. If KA goes to TP and says we are going to sign player X for 7x$7M and TP nixes it, then that's meddling. TP should be setting the parameters by which the organization will operate then let his people do their jobs. Basically your last sentence if those are the parameters. And to be clear, I feel these examples, if true, are signs of short-sighted decision making by the owner and do not agree with them.
Relatedly, if such parameters are being placed upon KA then TP needs to come out and say so. A leader of an organization should not sit quietly while putting a key subordinate in a position to take the slings and arrows ("I've been given all the resources I need") for those decisions. Maybe that was implied in the infamous EEE speech?