Perhaps RAS (Romantic) would have been a better choice of nomenclature than EAS? Too late now
Perhaps also Disorder would have been better than Syndrome? Maybe Obsession even as it frequently is an obsession.
My own view is that the distinguishing characteristic of this condition within sex work, is that the romantic emotions are typically one sided, usually though not always on the part of the punter. The latter then looks (and hopes) for signs that such emotions are reciprocated, which very occasionally they are, but in the vast majority of cases are not. This is much less likely the situation outside of sex work.
An SP being particularly good at her job results in a higher chance of misinterpretation. This is complicated further by some SP's who latch onto the punter's attachment and milk it, by flirting between visits giving free time including social time and other extras etc. The motive being to keep you as a regular.
As this thread is about 'dealing with it' then from the aspect of the 'afflicted' you have a number of options.
(a) Accept fully it is one sided and just carry on enjoying your paid for visits and the GFE fantasy.
(b) Accept it is probably unreciprocated and move on because you cannot cope with wondering if she feels the same or worse you actually want/need her to feel the same.
(c) Determine if she does feel the same by asking and applying the acid test of no payment at all for the sex.
Option (a) may not be easy long term and (b) carries the risk that you may still wonder if she did feel the same and struggle to move on.
Option (c) is blunt and runs the highest highest risk of feelings of rejection and will normally mean option (a) is then off the table, but is also likely to be the one that you recover from quicker and with less risk of future relapses with others.
Option (c) of courses may result in the other party agreeing in which case you are in a whole different relationship arena with a set of different challenges ahead, many of which apply to any relationship, but of course some which specifically do not.