I'll highlight this part of what you say, because it is representative of what we disagree on:
God sees A, but wants B, and so intervenes and changes the result to B, but then A never occurred, so God shouldn't have been able to see A as a future, because there was no future A.
And that was a ridiculously simplistic example
Right from the get-go you step out of fact into supposition. God does not simply "see A but want B". That misrepresents what God is doing. It represents the facet WE see, by virtue of a general knowledge we have of him and his nature, and by comparison to his stated commands. While we indeed (as you said) have no way of knowing what reality is for God, we can know some things, such as the fact that it is
not how we see it.
It would be useful to do a good study on the theological and philosophical Attributes of God of Aseity, Simplicity and Immanence. Consider the notion, for example, that for God to think is to
do, as opposed to the human notions of God considering this or that possibility. If what is possible is exactly all he does, and there is no other fact, then "what would be [otherwise] 'possible' is only by
our lack of knowledge". As RC Sproul quoted, "Chance is only a substitute for, 'I don't know.'" ALL FACT DEPENDS ON GOD.
God sees A because he caused A. "There is no plan B." That B goes against his command has to do with what SHOULD HAVE happened. Don't confuse his command with his plan ( =the theological term, 'his decree').