Would play it the same way.

seems fine.

Would anybody consider folding here as it's our first hand at the table and we have no history?

I think your options OTR are call or x/r. You're blocking a ton of his value hands including some of his extremely nutted ones and very very very few of his bluffs. Whether I called or x/r'd here would basically depend on how often I was x/r'ing earlier streets; the more I am x/r'ing earlier the more my range needs me to call down with this hand and the less it wants to be x/r'ing river, but if I still have sets and straights in my range I don't need to call anywhere near as wide and OTOH I do need to have bluffs in a x/r'ing range.

Keep in mind that this is a way way way better hand to x/r with than QhJh or something here on the river. It isn't like you're bluffing too much because you're turning the middle of your range into a bluff - when you're facing a river bet which you can't call you are in the bottom of your range, even though you have top pair, and your bluffs need to be from the hands in the bottom of your range with the best blockers, which this is very very very strongly one of.

The FD missed and you don't block it, you block 78 (although I would expect him to bet bigger with it) and I'm not sure he he takes this line with less than AQ.

Cr is probablt not great because Villian likely thinks you'd cr flop or turn with 78, so you would have to make him fold hands like AK here, as again I don't think medium TPs even bet three times.

It's also imo kind of a bad habbit to call here on the turn, and then fold when nothing changes on the river. Good players will follow through a lot on this river, so gut checking him by calling twice won't work out very well for you.

I don't get what you got the idea what we have to call down every brick everytime? The way ranges works and are constructed we should have hands that call two and fold two a third bet. There wouldn't be any reason for villain to bluff river if we call every single hand we get to the river with. It's ok to fold bricks to a 3rd bet.

And I don't rly like this whole way of thinking that we got one combo that folds bricks. We're playing a range, not a single combo. There are parts of our range which will at least call down on every single runout (raise on some) and there are parts of our range that folds a brick.

About the hand, most regs on these stakes probably leak in the sense that they don't barell enough and they got too low wwsf. Given this, I would recommend you to fold when in doubt. Unless you don't think he reps much / got reasons not to fold.

However all plays seems reasonable to me, with slightly better blockers I would always raise this. A7 is kinda close, probably reasonable to raise OTR unless we want to call.

So one thing that I think keeps people stuck in micros is that they do things which are easy and then think that they're successfully exploiting people. I think this is very true of myself, which is one reason I'm going to spend some time on this post. This is a spot where calling or raising with A7s are probably GTO correct, and folding A7s is probably the highest EV play because we're running on the assumption that the 25NL player pool is biased enough away from 3-barrel bluffing on a runout like this and that they're biased enough that even the bayesian considerations of the fact that on our first hand against this guy he 3-barreled (it's much more likely he'd do that if he could be bluffing than if he only did this with value) aren't enough to make us want to bluffcatch a normal frequency against an unknown. Further we think an unknown doesn't fold anywhere near enough to a x/r for a x/r to be better than folding.

So, let's say we think that that is true about the player population and folding A7s here is an easy and confident play. If we're going to make plays like that we need to consider what other plays we need to make for our gameplan to be consistent with that read, and many of those other plays are not going to be nearly as easy as this one.

Here are a few examples:
Villains will x, f turn and river way more often than they should so we should float flop in order to bet river vs a check much more often than is balanced, we should probably even be calling with hands with almost no equity.
Villains will play postflop absolutely abysmally as OOP RFI against coldcalls just as a general rule, so we should call much much wider than usual preflop.
Villains will not fold hands which should fold facing a river x/r, so we have extra implied odds especially with disguised hands like gutters and bdfds and we should x/r much more thinly for value than we are meant to OTR.
Villains will not barrel river with air so we have no incentive to protect our checking range and no incentive to try to collect bluffs with our strong hands so we should be donking river when we have strong value hands which aren't quite strong enough to x/r, in order to get money off hands which would have checked behind.

Now if someone did all those things against all unknown villains at 25NL and also exploitatively folded all bluffcatchers on this river that would be totally fine by me. But people don't actually do those things, they aren't confident enough to x/r thin for value or float flop OOP and they play extremely static preflop ranges and they never bet out of tempo ever.

Folding a bluffcatcher vs an unknown isn't ever going to be that bad, but adjusting yourself into a gameplan where you play completely balanced except that you fold all your bluffcatchers on the river is always going to be bad because the assumption which lets you fold all your bluffcatchers on the river requires you to play other parts of your game in an imbalanced way too. If you play balanced except for folding bluffcatchers on the river your gameplan is inconsistent, it's assuming something about villain but only applying that assumption to one place, and doing that doesn't make any sense and isn't good, it's just something you're doing because it's easier than working out what is actually good here.