I bought these with the notion from the test measurements that they were going to be a great tonal balance without any EQ'ing, that was a mistake.
They are a great tonal balance, in that they are a good match to the Harman in-ear target. But it seems you don't like what the research has determined to be a great tonal balance, you prefer more mid-bass and a warmer mid-range, with less emphasis/clarity in the ear gain region. A generally more smoothed over warmer sound, that you would call more "musical".
Which is fine, it's a preference, but if you do have a seal, you should take from this that you will not like ANY IEM that gets a good score on ASR because they are all going to have this sub-bass emphasis with scooped out mid-bass, lean lower mids and a quite forward pinna gain region. That's Harman, and that's what is being scored against here.
I'm not totally on board with Harman in-ear myself, I feel it could have a smidge more mid-bass but a little less pinna gain but these IEMs actually already have that, they already have a bit more mid-bass than Harman IE does, and a bit less in the 5-8kHz region. IEMs that are closer to Harman have even
less mid-bass and are even more thin and lean sounding, this IEM already sounds mid-bassier and richer than a full Harman IEM. Chu 2 is pretty close, but bang on Harman is definitely a thinner, leaner, less warm, less rich sound than this is, I have several IEMs that are closer to Harman than this one and that's the direction it goes in.
You don't like that, and that's fine, but this is more about your personal preference and what you are used to, than a problem with the IEM.