To put this another way: in your second post to this thread, you rewrote your algorithm to work with single-pass sequences after learning Sequence was single-pass. If Sequence were multi-pass, rewriting the function for Iterator would require a call to makeIterator() just to pass in a Sequence. Therefore, making Sequence multi-pass discourages this generalisation to single-pass sequences.
Currently, you can still write a more concise algorithm by making Collection be the parameter. The tradeoff is greater, in terms of what sequences can no longer be handled, encouraging generalisation to single-pass sequences through use of Sequence.
The status quo encourages generalisation, while your proposed change would actively discourage it.
PS:
I understand there are merits to your suggestion - it can be easy for authors to forget the possibility for single-pass sequences, given the presence of extensions which only work with multi-pass sequences. Having this option would also be nice for those of us who aren't library authors, and are okay with making functions just for our own use-cases. One could also make the argument that single-pass sequences are an edge-case.
Personally, I think encouraging generalisation is worth sacrificing a bit of convenience. I like that the most obvious solution is also the best practice one. But it is a matter of opinion.