Presumably, that approach was being studied all along (in the three months that it's even been a decision.
Everyone assumes the FDA are being rigid and bureaucratic regardless of what they actually do. How do you write an article ripping them for magical thinking as they do the thing you're saying they should do? The fact that the FDA didn't pull a u-turn on the same day a"maybe this" thought occurs to a welfare economics professor is enough to accuse them of negligence every week.
Now, it doesn't even seem like even doing what he thinks they should do is enough. They're still caught up in "magical thinking." What for, giving any weight to clinical trial design at all.