upd: typos
Either way, I always had the impression Streams concerns are exaggerated and mostly hear-say. There are better reasons for not using Stream, namely steering clear of Red Hat and not reinforcing their ecosystem.
If I'm allowed to muse, I never understood all these CentOS forks either. Why not put that effort into Debian, a truly democratic distro without any corp able to make these kind of moves?
I haer that fir ten years already. Thig is, I don't remember|hear AD doing the same.
I work for Red Hat Kernel maintenance (now), previously part of product security. I imagine you wont find much "breakage" in CentOS because of how the Red Hat Engineering process works.
All patches that end up in CentOS stream (kernel) end up going through the same continuous integration testing that standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux kernel fixes would go through. There is additional advanced testing that "RHEL kernels" go thorugh.
Each weekly 'Build' (that also ends up hitting centos stream git server) goes through the regular QE process, and the most recent qualified release at the time of a 'compose' ends up making into the Red Hat CDN.
Z stream kernel is the area that im involved in, these particular fixes that make it into Z stream are -very- low risk and are based on customer demand. The CentOS streams wont "break kabi" but I guess there could be mistakes made before it reaches the advanced RHEL testing. Choosing a more mature release would likely mitigate much of the risk.