The two concepts are not inextricably intertwined. We have yet to hear about a single person say that they have been shut out of a FP for any attraction other than A&E. Maybe the Mine Train here and there, but there is no outcry here that there are not enough FPs to go around. So even with advanced booking, there are leftover FPs for Space Mountain, BTMRR, Splash and apparently TSMM at least on most days. So the question was, what to do with those "same day" passes. Sell them? Give them out as rewards? Allow people who didn't book them in advance get them, or allow commandos to double up on them by getting more of what they already had.
The concepts aren't inextricably intertwined, but the rationale you've chosen to support the argument that hold-back makes no business sense for Disney is the exact same rationale I used to make the case that 3-and-out was never Disney's plan -
Get FPs into the hands of people who are going to redeem them.
I suppose Disney might have initially planned to sell additional FPs outright but several things seem to cut against that.
40% of guests didn't use FP when it was
free, a percentage of the rest used it at a rate of 1-3, a percentage used it a >3
because it was free, and so on. Giving people 3 guaranteed and letting them buy additional FPs assumes that there is a market for these FPs that would use up the supply in a manner consistent with the overall goal of FP+. Did such a market exist? What would that market require of a system that now charges what was before free? Can you meet that expectation?
I suppose they could have initially planned to use additional FP capacity for rewards/incentives, but if the goal is to get people to redeem FPs (as opposed to merely pulling FPs), how do you effectively apply this? Do resort guests use FPs at a different rate that non-resort, Deluxe guests more than Value?
And how would this be any different than the hold back strategy we're currently debating where Disney denies this guest 60 days out for the potential benefit of another guest day of?
None of this matters, as Disney's actions demonstrate a classic case of the dog that didn't bark. When looking for evidence, you have to see not only consider what is present but also what
should be present, but isn't.
If either of these strategies were seriously contemplated, they would have been included in Disney's survey to fix problems you said were only exposed by guest complaints. Why wouldn't Disney simply move to implement either of these strategies instead of scrapping them and implementing one of 3 different strategies?
The question answers itself. The theory that asks me to assume the least is usually the correct one.