Tom,
There are two, distinctly different ways of interpreting Slumber's comments and the delay in the the Distance Insights reports.
Your's is but one of them, with a dollop of natural bias and well-deserved cynicism. This might prove quite valid.
The other interpretation is that the R&A may well be earnest in it's intent to address the excessive distance problem, yet is acting prudently in the disruptive times of an undefined health, business and labor crisis before enacting any kind of regulatory resets.
Golf is thriving in certain locations, and struggling in others. Same for different segments of it's underlying industry. Covid-19, like it has to so many other capitalist endeavors, has unequivocally disrupted "business-as usual."
It is most certainly a good part of the inflection point you insinuate, however as much as you and I would like to see strong measures taken to roll back the ball, bifurcate, or otherwise sternly address the crazy race for driving distances, any decision to do so can produce a negative impact on hundreds, if not thousands of companies and their employees.
"Capitalists pouncing" occurs when disruptions provide new or fresh opportunities. Sure, I could see new ball manufacturers and landscape architects seeing a boon, but doing so at this moment will end up a zero-sum game...one with potentially negative consequences equal to or larger than what is gained.
Which interpretation proves accurate remains to be seen? I absolutely favor some restraints imposed in whatever fashion reigns in the extreme distances seen amongst elite players. Sadly, the PGA pros and Gumby-like young guns are the models the industry relies on vs. the average players, public and private. That's a whole other problem, but nevertheless one intricately tied to the outcome of the report.
I, for one, won't yet condemn the R&A for going slow this time around. A few more months won't matter all that much in the scheme of things.