I think it's worth considering, yes, and we've noted before that we'll certainly consider amending proposals as more usage experience comes in. XCTest has a similar issue where there are very good reasons to need to overload async and non-async (the pre-async version has the good name and needs to stick around). Would you be willing to write up an amendment to SE-0296, along the lines of what we did to amend SE-0306 for better nonisolated let semantics, and a member of the Core Team will run a review for it next week?
Doug