First, a cheat is a cheat, period. If you literally hand a character a Conflict Ball that's a cheat. It's hackneyed and lazy, but maybe it can lead to an interesting and fair story if you focus on the non-Conflicted people. If you give EVERY character a Conflict Ball and then stack up four or five more "because the author says so" plot devices, you're cheating. That is not a rational or realistic setting, The characters are not human beings that can be empathized with -- they are windup toys, action figures that the author is smashing together to make pretty explosions. It robs the grimdark of any value because it's not actually based on character choices.
As to Taylor and being socially useless -- sure, fine, she was a teenager, not very self-aware, and all her role models used their powers for punching. She can probably get a pass on deciding that punching a few skinheads is a better way to improve the world than preventing millions of deaths from disease and starvation by removing all lice etc from an area + having insects kill the rats and dispose of their bodies + remove all pests from fields, etc. No doubt punching is also better than volunteering to make spidersilk armor for every cop, or half a dozen other high-impact options that I could come up with if I thought about it for five minutes.
So, fine, Taylor gets a pass on all of that. What's everyone else's excuse? (Answer: a stack of narrative cheats.)
On capes being socially useless, I'll first point out that the mindset of effective altruism, high-impact efforts is demonstrably
not intuitive in our real world, given how people do not as one flock to the most high-impact charities and donate to sub-optimal causes instead. Second, I'll point out that in the setting heroes are needed to stop villains, since you can't stop a villain with a nontrivial power ranking without nontrivial heroes. Factor in the high villain to hero ratio, and remember that rogues
do exist as a minority, and the only real thing you have ground to complain about here is the concept of villains.
On character choices, the Conflict Ball does exist, but is not all-encompassing or blatant. Taylor, at the beginning of the story, only wants to be a hero, even though she went though so much and had every right to lash out against the world. The way you put things, I'd expect Taylor to trigger and immediately go postal on the school. Those ambitions to be a hero were all Taylor. You have more of a case with characters like Rachel, whose brains were significantly modified on trigger, but to decry Rachel would also demand that you decry all fiction involving the mentally ill. After all, the author just twists their brain until it fits what the author wants them to do, right? But no, I think it's fairly obvious that good fiction can be done with mentally disabled people, and by extension it must be so that good fiction can be done with people like Rachel.
On villains existing, first consider that trigger events mainly happen to people with horrible lives. Then consider that even in our world, many people do horrible, horrible things if they think they can get away with it (and some don't even bother considering if they can get away with it or not). The Wormverse is no stranger to successful villains, so if you take a dreg of society, give them amazing powers, and set precedent, it shouldn't take more than a small push to get that dreg turning to crime.
And I'm afraid I can't identify what you mean by 'four or five more "because the author says so" plot devices'. What I will note, however, is that concerning the background and premise of the story, complaints can only be levied at internal consistency. Saying 'I don't like the idea of a Protectorate; I think a world of superheroes and supervillains would not look like this' is not valid, because the Protectorate is justified in the backstory. To object to the Protectorate, you would have to tell me why the backstory for the Protectorate is inconsistent.
There are a thousand thousand stories out there which write characters less human than Worm, even a number of works of great acclaim. I do not think Worm should be punished for having a legitimate reason for the relatively minor extent it exhibits abnormal behaviour, rather than just ignoring it or being ignorant of it. I wouldn't say Worm's rational, but it's certainly realistic. Including a Conflict Ball in the premise doesn't make the story un
realistic, just different from here. I can still understand not liking Worm, don't get me wrong, I just think your critique approaches from the wrong angles.