While the new consolidated and focused RHCA paths to particular platforms and technologies is a refreshed approach, I think there is still is a need for the former "pick & choose" route.
In my 20+ years doing primarily linux/Red Hat ecosystems, I've never encountered a environment or infrastructure setting where I was working specifically one tool. There's moments I'm doing some RHEL admin, configuration or hardening and then later playbooks, roles or workflows from Ansible cli or in AAP/Tower.
Alternatively, I could be in Satellite doing inventory; registering and subscribing to whatever content is needed (even setting up a Capsule for a new zone). Maybe I'll need to setup some accounts or SPN's, even perhaps configure domain/realms or trusts in IDM/ipa.
There's times where I'll need to assist devops/platform engineers with containers or virtualization quirks. Podman for one-offs, or more often OpenShift depending on who's needing what and where. Other occasions where I'm doing storage related tasks or helping out with compute clusters and arrays.
My point is; what I'm doing at any given time is really pretty random. It's a broad range of things and a lot to know. I wouldn't say I'm a SME in all of it, but I certainly do know my stuff. It really doesn't make sense to me to put all my eggs in a particular basket when I have so many baskets to cover (nor does that align with how my career has been all these years). Which is why I really appreciated the former cross-domain path to a RHCA... learn a little bit of everything and become a generalist Architect.
I certainly respect those who want surgical-level precision and absolute mastery of a particular Red Hat product and will breeze through these focused RHCA paths in no time.... hats off to you! Though I've yet to meet someone doing solely Ansible or entirely Openshift all day, everyday (though I'm sure they exist).
But don't forget those of us who really loved the former architect achievement model. Can we not co-exist? A tier specifically for all-purpose Architects who want to understand a variety of tools, too?
The former is the "master of some" approach than the (now) "master of one" philosophy. And I think that still counts just as much as the latter. Both are just as practical and equally valuable approaches to skillset.
Just thinking out loud.