None of the progression affects the final museum result though. The only “changes” that they’ve made to the final product are non-Vanilla ones that are done for financial (loot trading reduces GM work, same with RCR) or technical (sharding, using the modern client and infrastructure) reasons.
They aren’t actually asking us for any ‘pick and choose from Vanilla’ feedback, because there’s no compelling reason for them to break their museum recreation.
(Despite what the President of Blizzard, a HR weenie said).
There is the very compelling argument of authenticity though.
Personally what they should do is something close to original AV progression.
If they don’t have the different iterations of AV available in their databases then they could start with some sort of close approximation of 1.7 AV for example and then evolve it into 1.12 in a later phase.
It would be far more authentic than just straight up starting with 1.12.
But lets say they really have no official data on AV prior to 1.12. I think they just see it as something unfortunate and don’t think of tinkering with something manny people will say of not to be like it was and then they have nothing to fall back on. Different people will say different things on how 1.5 av was, where the mines lay and all that stuff. What are they supposed to do then?
Here is where I would personally use selective judgement on the issue at hand.
1.12 talents and the later iterations of those particular dungeons have not triggered a meaningfully widespread debate. So they can be considered accepted as is.
AV has triggered a massive storm of debate. So perhaps it warrants some degree of closer inspection.