I understand the argument you're making, and I agree latitude was certainly a factor and it wasn’t just the eastward trend. I should have been more specific, so I’ll just say that the eastward trend AND the slight weakening/flattening of the ridge itself played a major role in our outcome. If the ridge had verified closer to 597 dm like some of the models were showing earlier and remained farther west, as several earlier runs depicted, I think we almost certainly would have squeezed out a few more days in the 90s at least. Maybe we don't end up with the 10–11 day stretch of 95°+ that some guidance was hinting at, but at minimum week-long run of 90s with a couple shots at 100° seems entirely plausible.
Boston isn’t super comparable in this case tbh. Despite having a significantly cooler climatology than we do, they still managed a couple of 100° days and challenged records without even sitting beneath the core of the 594 dm ridge, which arguably makes what they experienced even more impressive. To me, that highlights just how important the ridge's placement and strength were. Had the ridge axis ended up even 100–200 miles farther west we likely would have remained capped and hotter for longer, with stronger subsidence and warmer low-level thicknesses sticking around for longer, resulting in a longer stretch of 90s and a much better chance of reaching 100° (assuming the same 594 dm strength, if it were like 600 dm who knows what would’ve happened).
Either way, I'm not going to argue it any further, it was a respectable stretch of heat and humidity around here, but in the end it wasn't especially memorable. We may even see a more noteworthy heat event around mid-month if the Euro is onto something…