That "inseam x 0.883" method is my approach since the beginning of my "serious" cycling. That was over 30 years ago.
What does that mean?
First: it's an old method. Probably there are other, younger methods with newer ergonomic findings. One question is: how much do their results deviate from the 0.883 method? I don't know.
Second: Two wheels, a frame in between, the front wheel can change directions and the rider on top of the frame is an old concept as well. Over 200 years old. Granted, there are some improvements here and there, but the base is still the same. In my world that's an indication for a good concept. The 0.883 method was accepted for decades, so it couldn't be totally wrong.
Third: It's a starting point, not the absolute truth. There are factors which affect the correct saddle height too, eg. the distance between the pedal axle and the sole of the foot. On your photographs the bicycle is with flat pedals. Therefore I assume that you are wearing some kind of "normal" sport shoes (eg. for running or walking). These kind of shoes are optimised to dampen the load peaks of running - with relatively thick soles. Dedicated cycling shoes have thinner and stiffer soles. The 0.883 method is for cycling shoes. My recommendation is that you try out different saddle heights over time, but change it only for a few millimetres at a time, try it for a medium ride and take the necessary tools with you to have the ability to go back to the previous height. Your body will tell you what's the best saddle height.
According to the position of the seat post: that Trek frame has got a very long seat tube. For me that's the reason why the saddle setup looks a bit strange.
You wrote that you are on the heavy side for your size and that your cycling career is just at the beginning. The body weight has to be somewhere and from my own experience I know that it tends to gather around the belly. So we can't take a very aero position on the bicycle. The position on the road bike leads to three points of support: the saddle and the places where the hands meet the handlebar. The body muscles are much more used to handle the weight than the arms, wrists and hands. That's why I agree with the staff in the Trek store you mentioned: the handlebar setup is beginner friendly.
The standard frames from big brands like Trek and their sizes are made to match as many people as possible with "average" body proportions: leg length, torso length, arm length. If we are further away from that average, then we have to address that with a different frame size. You wrote that you have a longer torso and longer arms in relation to your legs. In my opinion a "too big" frame would be the obvious approach.
So my conclusion (with the available informations) is that the guys in the Trek store sold you a bicycle which is in the right size range for you.
E.
PS: You bought a car which matches the frame colour of your bicycle. Very good...