Let's try some word association: Ambrosia, err i mean, Artistic integrity: Tali's portrait.
I guess it's hard to resist copying Deus Ex, even when the context isn't there. That they use "artistic vision" aka integrity as a defense again is pretty insulting. Are they incapable of addressing why people think the ending is bad and/or at least attempting a rational counterargument? I believe the answer is yes, as I don't think you can rationally defend the endings as they are. But they are unwilling to admit that.
The one redeeming quality is, of course, that it's free, but that's small consolation right now.
Honestly, I'd rather pay $5 (but not $15--unsure on $10) for a completely new ending or an IT ending with additional gameplay that's at least as good as ME'2s but with more epilogue as well. Charging for ending DLC could be a little embarrassing even for EA after winning a prestigious "worst company in America" award, but I recognize that work isn't for free and to entirely redo the ending would require loads of work. I would pay in the spirit of, "you messed up, but that stuff happens, if you show good faith, so will I."
Could that set a precedent for intentionally writing terrible endings? Yes, but in this case, I don't think it's intentional, and if it happened again, suspicion levels would go from benefit of the doubt to >9,000. It's kind of like lending money to a coworker. If they pay you back, you'll do it again, unless there is some deception involved. And if they don't pay you back, you'll simply never lend again.