This is subjective. As you know, the cherry picker and the gateway as a whole, and our protocol network are practically coupled. It’s how we resolved our QoS issues, I thought this was understood.
If the thesis is true, then I do not see a problem with using protocol parameters to address this issue. I did voice my concerns in PUP-21 whether there were any fairness issues when it comes to consolidation - and it was addressed by stating that we could leverage the protocol parameters to address any unfairness, as seen here: PUP-21 Setting parameter values for the PIP-22 new parameter set - #60 by msa6867
Going into it deeper, I did mention if we set it at 1, and there was any perceived unfairness, we would see pushback from 60K node runners when it comes to decreasing it.
These parameters decide whether someone should max out on consolidation or not, especially with linear staking. Bumping it down may not sound as easy as it seems if the majority of the network decides to consolidate to max. I believe there is less friction in being conservative and bumping it up - rather than convincing a load of maxed consolidated nodes that their rewards are going to be cut if we need to dial back.
I agree with @StephenRoss in general, appreciate PoktScan time in all of this, but we can’t take what they say as fact unless it’s been peer-reviewed by other entites. Coming up with a solution is going to take engineering time, data validation, and plenty of cognitive overhead. What that means is in general, we’re put in a rather shitty position, and the whole network and community hurt off that.