@Smmenen What remedy do you suggest then, if you are so unhappy about the state of things? Unrestrictions?.... now?... really?
I follow you so far as you point out the inconsistencies in the DCI reasoning around the restrictions. Their policy and reasoning around these changes is just about totally void of any leadership or transparency and I certainly won't defend it. The "prediction" aspect of it seems interesting as well. You seem to be suggesting that, should the DCI "prediction" not come true, the rest of the effort, and the restrictions themselves would be invalidated.
I don't follow that at all. Firstly, the "prediction" itself is terrifically open ended. It has no time frame, it only really predicts that Mentor based strategies will be "significantly" weakened... whatever that means. And the change in the meta game it mentions is only "hope"ed for consequence in the statement, not really a prediction at all, which is the aspect you seem to be focused on. (do correct me if I'm wrong here, I am certainly not trying to strawman what you've been saying.)
Additionally, why should a failed prediction necessarily invalidate the change anyway? If they made a prediction that fails to create the specific changes that were called for, but creates other positive changes, or even fails to create compelling negative side-effects, then who cares? Leave the change in place and move on.
At this point, the biggest negative side effect of the restriction is easily the gripping about it with no end in sight... If Gush got restricted, and didn't change anything at all... which, going by only this top 8 result (a silly-small sample) it would seem to have done... then leave it in place and move on. Changing the status quo has inherent cost, as does complaint.