I don't expect to see much in the way of changes to how summary trials go, considering that folks handing out sentences at summary trials seem to be in the habit of completely ignoring precedent and instead like to just give what they feel like giving, regardless of what everyone else is doing. Expecting anything remotely resembling consistency there is unreasonable.
That's a pretty broad statement with zero supporting evidence. I think I've sat through about 20 or so for one reason or another, and even the same charges were apple and orange comparisons, but they generally seemed pretty reasonable and fair in the judgements when you took into account the mitigating/aggravating factors (1st AWOL vs 3rd, for example). JAGs were consulted for the punishments, so it wasn't done in a bubble. Even XOs I thought were power mad arseholes were surprisingly fair and reasonable.
JAG reports are pretty consistent stats wise, and unless you review every finding with the facts, pretty hard to make a sweeping statement. Only a pretty small portion of findings are challenged by the members, and it seems to be a about an even split over time on which ones were quashed, and which ones were upheld, so overall probably working reasonably well. If 96% never appeal, probably a good indicator that the members generally are okay with the outcomes. The high 'guity' findings are just an indication that stuff doesn't proceed unless it's pretty clear cut and I've seen a few STs end in not guilty on some of the charges if the evidence didn't support them. Pretty hard to argue AWOL when cameras are pointing at the brow with a DTG though.
Agree this is a weird CANFORGEN, hopefully this is followed up with clarification and actual plain language direction.