I watched the first episode of the third series when it aired in the UK on Wednesday, and personally, I loved it. There were flaws, but it's a tv show, there are always going to be imperfections. For now I want to set the majority of the intricate discussion aside, and focus on one aspect. The Fall and the explanation of Sherlock's survival, or lack thereof.
The reactions when I went online immediately after the episode, and everything I've seen since seems to fall into two camps:
1. Those who think that the third 'explanation' (the one given by Sherlock to Anderson towards the end) is unequivocally the 'true' one.
2. Those who think that the question of how he survived has been left intentionally ambiguous as a comment on how explanations are never satisfying.
(3. The people saying that Sherlock actually did fall from the roof and spent the two years in hospital)
Now, personally when watching the episode I got the impression that all three explanations were teasing/red herrings, and that we were simply going to have to wait for the big reveal (presumably to John at some point). This would seem to be supported by the fact that Moffat and Gatis have said that they have always known how he did it, and the fuelling of the speculation between series by Moffat saying there's a clue everyone missed.
However, no one seems to be saying this. Am I mad? Did anyone else presume this was all use a big tease to make us wait? It seems weird to me that everyone's assuming that because we didn't get a full and detailed explanation in the first episode, that's the issue done and dusted, and it will never be revisited.