An inner-exegetical parallel to Exodus 32: If Samuel would have interceded on Saul’s behalf – a king that was well within the monarchic stipulations in Deut. 17, unlike David and Solomon (the latter breaking every single stipulation, other than his being, ironically, “not a foreigner”) – then perhaps God would have changed his mind about erasing the Saulide line, as he changed his mind here in Ex. 32 (see 1 Sam. 15).

Ergo, perhaps your claim is an accurate one. Please excuse my thinking out-loud – HA!

What about the dangerous yet successful Mosaic paradigm in Exodus 32:7-14? In this section, the prophet is able to approach, contest and sway God’s wrath (vv. 11-13). In response to Moses’ challenge, the text tells us, “and the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (v. 14)…

… And what was the cornerstone of his defense? — the appeal to memory (v. 13). Moses cites the exodus event, and he further appeals to the covenant established with Abraham.

Exegetically said, human agents when in-line with the memory of Scripture are empowered to approach and challenge the memory of God himself. — Indeed, there may have been another deluge if it weren’t for Moses’ agency, and God may have lamented as he did so poignantly in Genesis 6:6.

It might sound crazy that God needs, or relies, on humans in order to bring about his purposes for the cosmic renewal or eschaton, but a close exegesis of Exodus 32 supports it; furthermore, the overall canonical sweep of Scripture supports such a daring mutual interdependency of God/heaven and humans/earth, founded by Gen. 1:26-28, and supported in Gen. 5:1, Gen 9:6.

Therefore, I am not quite on-board with your above claim, as the relationship between humankind and God, as depicted in the biblical account, is more complex and nuanced.