Question

Kant attacks the argument by saying that the analytic is empty and cannot invent new things.
Intuitively, that’s the initial distrust one has toward such a proof: how on earth do you define something and then decide that it exists?
But I don’t understand. Causality is an assumption I make about the world, and I take it for certain that this is how the world behaves, even though I’ve never actually seen it, as Rabbi David Yom discussed at length.
Now, suppose causality were not so simple for me, and instead I had to prove by a logical proof that this is how I grasp reality—would that be an ontological proof? If so, then what exactly is different about the concept of causality, which can make an assumption about the world, as opposed to an ontological proof? Is the only ‘problem’ with the proof that it is not directly accessible to me, and I need to do conceptual analysis in order to understand that this is how I perceive things?
Kant claimed that conceptual analysis cannot add information about the world, and the answer would be that indeed the analysis adds no information at all—it merely shows me that this is how I perceive the world. Anyone who wants to argue that I perceive it this way but that reality is actually different is welcome first to challenge causality.
What is incorrect about this?