that seems like the kind of thing you'd want to find out from the EU before having a vote on whether or not to leave.
If they said we absolutely could not be treated the same as Norway, then that's more reason to leave the EU. Why would we want to remain part of a union that treats us differently to non-members? If they're giving preferential treatment to Norway, that tells you everything you need to know about the regard they held the UK, as a member state.

all the Remainers could promise was the status quo.
This sums it up quite nicely. What it came down to was status quo vs not status quo. And we voted the latter. We voted for change.

It's easy now for Brexit voters to say "we didn't want this kind of Brexit", and a lot of them are right, because this isn't the one they were promised.
I can remember having these kind of discussions in the build up to the vote, and after it. What kind of Brexit do we want? Most Brexit voters would agree that any Brexit is better than no Brexit. We had our preferences, for example a continued economic relationship that was in our mutual benefit, while some were happy to keep freedom of movement. The Scandinavia model was cited often. That was the ideal situation for me, at least. But if that wasn't possible, and clearly it wasn't, then hard Brexit is better than remaining.

If the gov't came out at any time between 2016-2020 and said "we're asking for EEA membership" publicly, and the EU said "no, sorry, can't do that," then you might have a case.
idk why it was never a viable option. It should have been. It would've been a decent compromise which would have kept remainers at least somewhat happy, while also leaving the union. But ultimately we voted to leave, a decision which had to be respected. So what we have is better than remaining part of the EU. It actually restored some faith in democracy, at least to those of us who value it.