That's not a fair characterization, in my opinion. The additions that the author made to Alternatives Considered and Future Directions—a @test attribute, discussion of Unicode normalization, and a possible way of escaping backticks in a backtick-escaped identifier, the effects on a future runtime type lookup API—were all discussed in the original pitch thread and weren't just off-hand suggestions that came up during the review.
As a meta discussion point, this is unfortunately an example of the concern I had in my review of this proposal up-thread. I wish the original proposal text had captured the good amount of discussion in the pitch thread that fleshed out more details and additional motivating use cases so that it would be (IMO) a more accurate representation of what the proposed change is.
There have been a number of reviewers in this thread who have said that the proposal's "only motivating use case" was for test naming. While I don't agree that's the case and mentioned others from the pitch thread in my own review, I also can't disagree that that's a valid takeaway from a proposal review standpoint for someone who didn't follow the pitch thread, because what they're reviewing is the proposal text that was posted here, not all of the preceding context/discussion.