I think the only house rules my group uses (aside from on the spot rules decisions) are the seemingly common treatment of null rolls and some open interpretation of the Sense power.
For null rolls (those that generate no success or failure), we usually allow a reroll with the expenditure of time or require a new approach to the problem. This is due to the seemingly common mistake that a lack of success does not/should not create an intrinsic failure (which it apparently does). In combat, a null roll is still a miss, but elsewhere else, we narrate the result based on the situation.
For Sense, a situation came up in our last session where we basically entered a dark site cave. The GM was feeding me very basic info about sensing a disturbance in the Force by virtue of being a Force user, but also allowed me to use Sense to gain a little more info about the situation, despite the nature of the encounter not specifically being about a living entity or its thoughts/emotions. This was done because there wasn't really another way to handle it and it created an in-game way for me to investigate the situation rather than either handing me everything or simply not telling me anything (investigating made it more interesting).
In a prior EoE game though, the GM was quick to house rule everything and anything, citing that the game was too easy and wasn't written properly. He hastily increased difficulties in combat, handwaved rules, and actively punished players for doing things like taking Aim maneuvers, accusing use of cheating the system. What this meant was that I, as a player, couldn't read the rulebook and form strategies or understand what my character was capable of doing, since the GM had his own rules he was using and would just pull the rug out from under me whenever I tried ot do anything anyways.
As I grow older, I become less and less interested in house rules. For me, this isn't about RAW vs. not RAW. This isn't about making the game yours or whether designers are perfect or not. For me, changing a game's rules is about fault-finding and the butterfly effect. Instead of spending all of the effort in finding the faults of a game and trying to fix it, I prefer to just play the game. If there is something that isn't working, there are ways to work within the system to make it work without dramatically changing things and investing in fault-finding. I also recognize that after spending some years working in policy development and longer tweaking games and creating house rules, that changing things creates unexpected and increasing changes elsewhere in the game. The butterfly effect is a real thing and few seem to understand how it can destroy a game.
In the earlier example of the GM who changed combat difficulties and other rules, all this did was make the game harder for non-combat characters and escalate the game for combat characters. Those who could dumped into combat skills and abilities and those who couldn't were left behind. This escalated the game, since the GM then needed to create harder and more dangerous encounters to counter the more dangerous combat spec'ed characters, who were only made like that to counter the house rule that the GM made to make combat harder in the first place. And when I started to take Aim maneuvers to try and stay in the game, the GM pounced on me like a wild animal and escalated the game even further. All the GM got from increasing the difficulty of combat rolls was a nuclear arms race and further escalation that required him to make combat even harder as he pushed back. If he didn't do any of this, he could have simply scaled the difficulty of encounters and the tasks that were against us, rather than having to change the rules and then scale up the encounters against us in order to compensate when we tried to survive.
The same thing happened with me years ago with Deadlands, where we originally disregarded stun checks because it was an added complexity that we were having trouble dealing with. Not using with made combats very lethal and drawn out, yet trying to reintroduce them somehow makes combats even more dangerous because we weren't used to the rules. And don't get me started on D&D 3rd edition, where not one single GM I played with knew the rules. Every table had wildly different house rules, such that one player's experience at one table would actually destroy another table's game. To this day, I have no idea how to play D&D, and my group is still hesitant to touch some multi-book games due to all the house rules and third party material that were caked onto D&D. All this did was take options away from the players and confuse GMs.
So I prefer to spend my efforts learning to play the games I play as they are presented, not fault-find and try and fix problems that really don't exist, or problems that are only going to get worse if I try and "fix them." That's my take and that's what I advocate to new players and old. It's also easier to join a game with a new group if you know the rules as printed than if you only know a GM's house rules, because you may not even know they are house rules.