this is something in clinical research called the dichotomy between pragmatic and explanatory trials. RCTs like this aren't useless even though they don't specifically answer the question YOU expect to have answered, which is essentially: "controlling caloric intake, what impact does restricted meal windows have on weight gain/loss/other measured outcomes?" This is an explanatory question--it seeks to isolate a variable (meal timing) and explain it's impact on people.

in contrast, the question the RCT is REALLY asking is essentially: "comparing ad libitum intermittent fasting (which is a very easy thing to suggest in a busy clinic) to a very expectably superior intervention like calorie tracking and restriction, does IF end up having some efficacy?"

it's a different question--more realistic of an intervention to provide and monitor (because you don't monitor it at all really...)--and so ends up being perfectly valuable if you interpret it for what it is, assuming the rest of your critical appraisal of the paper passes muster.

There's still likely some good reason to do that work manually. The quality of data entry into EMRs is often poor, especially when it comes to event or time data that's not just numeric bloodwork. Imagine that at a random physicals date your patient was suddenly was 155kg and 65cm tall. Or for another example, having someone be inaccurately be diagnosed as having new onset diabetes after transplant, despite them having DM for several years prior. People switch up entry fields, inaccurately assess or diagnose patients all the time--generally because of the sheer variety of ways in which data can be screwed up, only a person can notice those oddities (or write a little script to fix them).

At population levels I could concede that these errors may well be inconsequential though.