This is going to be a growing issue. While I anticipate the (correct) argument being made that this is a WT/Asobo problem - there’s more to the issue.
At the end of the day, these are approaches we should be able to select and while I 100% agree we shouldn’t be having this conversation on the Navigraph side, I think we’re going to unfortunately be forced to for quite a while. It’s become clear from some of the posts on the flight simulator forums that the devs have no intention of solving this at this time. So the question that Navigraph has to answer is:
Do they deviate slightly from real-world data to cater to the simulator or do they stand firm on precisely accurate data and punt this to Asobo/WT to fix and put pressure there?
I personally think it should be a bit of both. I think that Asobo/WT needs to figure out a better way to filter AR approaches than “no minima in the LPV/LNAV” because it’s not just RNP approaches being filtered. There’s a VOR/GPS approach I looked at not too long ago that had the same problem - the approach only had circle-to-land minima so it wasn’t selectable. I would like to see Navigraph provide a temporary workaround to Asobo’s problem, but I understand that Navigraph probably won’t - they’re historically resistant to such things with good reason.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying “Navigraph, please rescue us from Asobo/WT’s misstep here.”