Hopefully that last bit regarding the “sole discretion” clause will get explained by WJ as that sounds a bit dubious as it is worded currently. But 25% is still a fair percentage and it doesn’t mention “retro-active” application if the rule, which is a key point to get clarified IMHO.
Regarding the list, its a good idea but i think it’s equally important to get statements from other Aff programs on how they are situated which needs to be on the list. We need to understand what could happen but also accept terms can change. If a program will categorically state that any changes they apply in the future will NOT BE RETRO-ACTIVELY applied then i will feel much safer. As it is, I am starting to spread my eggs among several baskets as I’m starting to think we’re regardded very much as a means-to-an-end by some.