I agree with your concerns expressed in the "Problems with the Solution" section. I think that optionally labelling the first closure should be more thoroughly considered and as some other members of this community suggested, I advocate the deprecation and eventual removal of implicitly dropping the label of the first closure (in future versions of the language, of course). I believe that, because not all APIs have a first closure whose label is implied by the function/method name. There has been recent discussion about Standard Library methods have closures whose purpose is unclear due to the lack of a label (example: Renaming Trailing-closure Functions in the Standard Library).
I, also, understand your concerns regarding the focus of the community on what I assume you'd call unimportant language features, but I firmly disagree.
What I don't support is the fact that in the "Problems With The Problem" section you review the writing of the proposal, not the ideas shared in that proposal. The purpose of this discussion is to provide constructive criticism and express our opinions about the proposed change, not judge members's writing abilities. Providing constructive feedback on the writing is, of course, welcome. Even for that though, I consider this thread unrelated.