Sure, while my criticism is coming more as an insider, than as an external "onlookers", I believe that whatever the category you belong to, insider or onlooker one can find surprising that Brink has not already independence provisions in its contracts employment with the Bitcoin Core contributors on its payroll. At least for the most senior contributors on its staff.

In my view, independence is not something you remind when a controversy has already arised. By then, it's a little delicate to reach out and say "Independent review and open discussion are critical for Bitcoin Core". If you had to say and remind it explicitly, it's probably because it was not fully clear in your eyes and in the mind of the professional Bitcoin Core contributors on Brink's payroll.

In my humble opinion, independence is a point that should be fully clear in the minds of everyone involved. Having that kind of provisions in contracts employment obviously tight the hands of everyone, but I believe I can say that the outcome you wish when controversial topic happens like OP_RETURN. In all this matter, I think it got inflated a lot, partially because in the view of a lot of plebs and full-node operators, right or wrong, some professional Bitcoin Core contributors might have taken technical positions to satisfy some corporate interests.

If any it's of interest to you, I can share in private "independence" provisions I have spent time and effort to legally craft for myself in my professional endeavors, and as such keep my speech and actions free in matters of bitcoin development.

Apologies again if my tone is a bit rigid. Still I do remember when Brink in its rough lines was shared to me as a more consistent idea during a picnic on the grass of Long Island city, kinda end of May 2020. cc @schmidty