Consider that in every other context listed, {glyph1} {glyph2} (where both glyphs are numerals) indicates "{value of glyph1} * {base} + {value of glyph2}".

For anyone with a passing familiarity with our number system, yes it's straightforward. But this wasn't produced for those people - it was produced for people with absolutely no prior experience with human culture whatsoever.

The assumption is they will understand counting dots easily, = sign, then base 2, then another = sign, then base 10. It's to help both with the = sign and figuring out we use base 10.

Using dots to indicate what number we mean with our glyphs doesn't scale. So we need an intermediate notation to bootstrap the process.

Because binary in fundamental. You can pick any higher base you want, but everyone understand binary, so it's useful for transmitting information.

> versus showing some more advanced mathematical formulas

We aren't trying to teach them math, or show off. It's about setting a method of communication.

Because we've learned from the Rosetta stone that having more than one language system is extremely helpful for translating things. Translating something like this with no knowledge of the human race is an enormous endeavor. By providing three bases (base 1, base 2, and base 10), it'll be much easier to extrapolate their meaning. Base 1 should be fairly universal, and since much of our world today revolves around base 2 and 10, having each of those present will make for an effective starting point.

Think of it this way - if an alien probe landed on earth today, wouldn't it be a nice starting point to know that they use a mix of base 7, base 342, and base 61 for their number systems?