Does free choice have value in Maimonides’ teaching?

I would be happy if the Rabbi would address the question despite its length, it is a question that has been bothering me a lot lately.
Maimonides in the Book of Mormon (Chapter 332) proves that God does not change human nature based on three questions. Thus he writes: Many things have come to our Torah, because it is impossible to go from one contradiction to another at once. Therefore, it is not possible in human nature for him to abandon everything he has agreed to at once. …. And it is as it is said: And they did not rest by the way of the land of the Philistines, “For it is near, as God said, lest the people should rest when they see war, and return from Egypt.” And God led the people by the way of the Red Sea desert. Just as He led them astray from the king’s road, which was intended beforehand, to another way – out of anticipation of what their bodies were not capable of by nature – so that the first intention might be fulfilled… And what would have prevented God from leading them by the way of the land of the Philistines and giving them the ability to withstand wars, and then there would have been no need for that same round of the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night? And just as God caused them to wander in the desert until they gathered courage – it is known that life in the desert, when the body is rough and dirty, requires courage, and their transformation requires cowardice, and also people were born who were not accustomed to slavery and humiliation…
He also imposed the commandments (sacrifices) that we mentioned, because of an expectation of what their souls are naturally incapable of receiving, … for just as it is not human nature to be educated in the service of servitude to matter and bricks and the like, and then immediately wash their hands of their defilement and fight at once against the giants, so it is not human nature to be educated in the many kinds of worship and practices that they have become accustomed to and the souls have become accustomed to until they have become like the first intelligent being, and to cease them at once.
And so a question arises… Since God’s first intention and will is that we believe in this Torah and do its works, why did He not give us the ability to accept it and act according to it always, and would He not play a trick on us by doing good to us when we obey Him, and taking revenge on us when we disobey Him, and doing all these good deeds and all this revenge? After all, this is also a trick that He plays on us in order to achieve His first intention from us. What prevents Him from causing the observance of the acts of obedience that He desires and the avoidance of the transgressions that He hates to be our inherent nature?
The answer to these three questions and all others like them is one general answer, and it is that although miracles are a change in the nature of what is found from the details of what is found, God does not change the nature of the details of human beings in any way through a miracle.
Because of this great principle, he said: “Oh that their heart were this to fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it might go well with them and their children forever.” That is why the commandment and the prohibition, the reward and the punishment, came.
In his words here, Maimonides answers that God does not change the nature of humans through miracles, and therefore there are commands for sacrifices because they became accustomed to changing their nature to worship idols, and therefore God took them through the Red Sea and not through the Philistines because of the cowardly nature of the slave, which God cannot change. This situation also allows for free choice, and therefore God cannot seemingly give a new heart that would be our inherent nature not to commit transgressions.
Maimonides asks: Why can’t God give us a nature that would be innate in us to do the commandments and avoid transgressions? And he excuses himself by saying that God does not change human nature in any way, and Maimonides continues that because of this great principle he said: “May it be so,” etc. That is why the commandment and the prohibition, the reward and the punishment, came.
It seems from his words that free choice truly has no value at all and should be abolished, and only because God does not change nature does free choice remain, and if it were to be imagined that He would change nature, He would abolish choice.
It seems from his words that basic nature is free choice, and because God did not wish to change nature, He created a system of reward and punishment, and not the other way around. So if basic nature were absolute determinism, God would not have created free choice.
Is it possible to learn from Rambam that free choice does not exist in itself, but rather it is a necessary consequence that God does not change nature?