Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.
As someone who aspires to reach average, and who is a romantic enough to play hickories in every day rounds, I can tell you how much more confident I am and enjoyment I get day-to-day hitting my giant Callaway driver and my shot-improvement Adams hybrid-irons. For me, a victorious golf shot is one that goes straight, and it's no given that's going to happen.
For reference, I hit drives in the 230 range and a 7-iron 145.
As much as I like the idea of playing retro equipment, and I really do, my 17 index is the best I've ever carried with all the modern equipment benefits I've mustered, and that's pretty damn not yet average.
For me, keeping big headed drivers and springy balls takes some frustration out of that game, which has to be a good thing for people who have similar skillsets. And I don't know why the leadership of the game would want to make the game harder for me, I think I've amply demonstrated that it's plenty hard enough.
For the master golfers, however, that same equipment (or its equivalent for the highly skilled) appears to have changed the nature of the championship game. If the governing bodies want to rein that in, then I hope they do it without making me play small-headed, fickle clubs again.
Maybe that means bifurcation. IMO there are already little bifurcations in the rules. For example, I understand that during stipulated rounds like pro tournaments players have to declare the make and model of ball they play and stick to it during the round. However, in all other rounds, players can use a different type of ball from hole to hole, choosing, say, I high spin ball for short par-3's and a long low spin ball for longer holes. That sounds like a bifurcation of rules designed to address equipment-enabled competitive imbalances.
If that's what bifurcation actually means, then I'm for it.