Thank you for making this thread! It is both informative and conducive of important discourse. 
For anyone curious, here is the context:
Keep in mind that this particular phenomenon does not matter; the question at hand is more general. Please respect the wishes expressed in the opening post by the rational Reaver.
I believe it most likely that there exists a lack of efficiency when it comes to implementing updates, especially with the recent restructuring as mentioned by the gifted Gwyneth.
Deriving context from the way our beloved former Community Manager, Mr. Jesse Hill, shared certain information, it seems evident that there is always a lot of discussion with the team. Yet this is not necessarily a good thing in all circumstances: it can mean unnecessary bureaucracy; in some cases, it can result in no one double-checking the product or the more obvious interactions, because they assumed it has already been handled due to the conversations that were had.
Having said that, it is entirely fine for Team 5 to consider and even expect feedback from the player base! If anything, it bodes well that they are willing to make changes in response to the same. Due to sheer size alone, the players will indubitably always find interactions and bugs that the team might not be able to from limited playtesting. After all, this is the main reason certain decks can unexpectedly become meta tyrants, and therefore necessitate nerfs, at least for the sake of perception.
However, I do agree that Team 5 should provide at least an implicit disclaimer that any proposed update can be changed as appropriate. This is necessary when they might be debating their next course of action, and when they were truly unaware of an unintended interaction. We do not know which is true in this case, but either way, it would be reassuring to know that proposed cards and updates can and will be changed as deemed suitable. 
The remainder of this post will be somewhat off-topic, so my apologies in advance!
I have been saying since I first started playing the game that all Mana cost reduction effects should have a “but no less than (1)” provision. That is, anything that reduces Cost should have the Summoning Portal restriction, as Reckless Experimenter now does. Obviously, those cards and abilities that naturally cost 1 Mana would be unaffected, and those that naturally cost 0 Mana would continue to cost 0 Mana.
This change would not only preemptively preclude the most egregious forms of abuse, but also open design space for exploring and supporting such effects in expansions of a higher power level without necessarily breaking the game.
- Patron Warrior would not have been nearly so terrifying if Emperor Thaurissan stopped discounting cards when they reached 1 Mana.
In fact, Emperor Thaurissan in general has always been a concern; this would bring him down to a much more reasonable level while preserving his value in enabling countless fun and otherwise impossible combos. - Mech Mage quickly fell out of the metagame and is thus not a good example, but it would have been much more bearable and have had less of a negative impact on the meta if it were so restricted.
Besides, Mechwarper as a card can easily break other cards, as we have been seeing with the recent resurgence of Mechs – indeed, along with something like Zola the Gorgon, it would have enabled every class to play infinite copies of SN1P-SN4P in Wild. - This is the same reason that the nerf to Razakus Priest was targeted precisely and perfectly, and had such a massive impact on the deck and thus both the Standard and Wild metagames.
0-Mana cards and abilities are dangerous, especially so when they were pretty obviously never meant to be played for free. Consequently, discounting effects should always incorporate the “no less than (1)” limitation, either directly or indirectly.
I know that the brilliant Bowser has been championing a similar philosophy, probably for an even longer time! 