since the advent of GPT, the % of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse unexpectedly

The data you show, along with changes introduced since advent of GPT suggest that most likely cause for content collapse was identified incorrectly.

Much more plausible explanation is that collapse of frequent answerers content is the result of introducing new suspension reason.

Just think of it. Imagine some user willing to gain rep points without sufficient knowledge (for example if in their region these points impact job offers).

Prior to advent of new suspension reason such user could post low quality answers at a fairly high rate... well practically indefinitely - give or take some miniscule impact of soft rate limiting for those of them who are particularly unlucky. Really, what could stop them? Moderators surely could not because they don't intervene in low quality answers. Regular users could not either because of rep penalty.

Since the advent of GPT it is only natural to expect that many of such users will see it as an opportunity to gain reputation with even less effort than they invested before. So instead of their prior low quality answers they started posting GPT dumps. The difference this time is, because of a new suspension reason moderators now can introduce a substantial throttling (suspension) after their first few answers.

So what you've got since the advent of the new suspension reason is that the kind of users who previously could post tens if not hundreds of low quality answers at sufficiently high rate are now throttled by moderators much ealier - like, after posting just 5-10 GPT dumps.

There is your "% of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse" and it's not even close to happening "unexpectedly". (and if my assumption of such answerers historically tending to be from regions where rep points matter in the job market holds, there is also your observation about increase of region-specific suspensions)

GPT removal actions are not reasonably defensible

By same token, abrupt interruption of GPT related moderation is not reasonably defensible.

Quite the opposite - delay in such action is reasonably defensible. You have official procedure of introducing policy changes and this procedure justifies reasonable delay. You could (should) use such a delay to properly discuss this matter with moderators and find out how they would prefer to address it.

since the advent of GPT, the % of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse unexpectedly

The data you show, along with system changes introduced since advent of GPT suggest that most likely cause for content collapse was identified incorrectly.

Much more plausible explanation is that collapse of frequent answerers content is the result of introducing new suspension reason.

Just think of it. Imagine some user willing to gain rep points without sufficient knowledge (for example if in their region these points impact job offers).

Prior to advent of new suspension reason such user could post low quality answers at a fairly high rate... well practically indefinitely - give or take some miniscule impact of soft rate limiting for those of them who are particularly unlucky. Really, what could stop them? Moderators surely could not because they don't intervene in low quality answers. Regular users could not either because of rep penalty.

Since the advent of GPT it is only natural to expect that many of such users will see it as an opportunity to gain reputation with even less effort than they invested before. So instead of their prior low quality answers they started posting GPT dumps. The difference this time is, because of a new suspension reason moderators now can introduce a substantial throttling (suspension) after their first few answers.

So what you've got since the advent of the new suspension reason is that the kind of users who previously could post tens if not hundreds of low quality answers at sufficiently high rate are now throttled by moderators much ealier - like, after posting just 5-10 GPT dumps.

There is your "% of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse" and it's not even close to happening "unexpectedly". (and if my assumption of such answerers historically tending to be from regions where rep points matter in the job market holds, there is also your observation about increase of region-specific suspensions)

GPT removal actions are not reasonably defensible

By same token, abrupt interruption of GPT related moderation is not reasonably defensible.

Quite the opposite - delay in such action is reasonably defensible. You have official procedure of introducing policy changes and this procedure justifies reasonable delay. You could (should) use such a delay to properly discuss this matter with moderators and find out how they would prefer to address it.

since the advent of GPT, the % of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse unexpectedly

The data you show, along with changes introduced since advent of GPT suggest that most likely cause for content collapse was identified incorrectly.

Much more plausible explanation is that collapse of frequent answerers content is the result of introducing new suspension reason.

Just think of it. Imagine some user willing to gain rep points without sufficient knowledge (for example if in their region these points impact job offers).

Prior to advent of new suspension reason such user could post low quality answers at a fairly high rate... well practically indefinitely - give or take some miniscule impact of soft rate limiting for those of them who are particularly unlucky. Really, what could stop them? Moderators surely could not because they don't intervene in low quality answers. Regular users could not either because of rep penalty.

Since the advent of GPT it is only natural to expect that many of such users will see it as an opportunity to gain reputation with even less effort than they invested before. So instead of their prior low quality answers they started posting GPT dumps. The difference this time is, because of a new suspension reason moderators now can introduce a substantial throttling (suspension) after their first few answers.

So what you've got since the advent of the new suspension reason is that the kind of users who previously could post tens if not hundreds of low quality answers at sufficiently high rate are now throttled by moderators much ealier - like, after posting just 5-10 GPT dumps.

There is your "% of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse" and it's not even close to happening "unexpectedly". (and if my assumption of such answerers historically tending to be from regions where rep points matter in the job market holds, there is also your observation about increase of region-specific suspensions)

GPT removal actions are not reasonably defensible

By same token, abrupt interruption of GPT related moderation is not reasonably defensive.

Quite the opposite - delay in such action is reasonably defensive. You have official procedure of introducing policy changes and this procedure justifies reasonable delay. You could (should) use such a delay to properly discuss this matter with moderators and find out how they would prefer to address it.

since the advent of GPT, the % of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse unexpectedly

The data you show, along with changes introduced since advent of GPT suggest that most likely cause for content collapse was identified incorrectly.

Much more plausible explanation is that collapse of frequent answerers content is the result of introducing new suspension reason.

Just think of it. Imagine some user willing to gain rep points without sufficient knowledge (for example if in their region these points impact job offers).

Prior to advent of new suspension reason such user could post low quality answers at a fairly high rate... well practically indefinitely - give or take some miniscule impact of soft rate limiting for those of them who are particularly unlucky. Really, what could stop them? Moderators surely could not because they don't intervene in low quality answers. Regular users could not either because of rep penalty.

Since the advent of GPT it is only natural to expect that many of such users will see it as an opportunity to gain reputation with even less effort than they invested before. So instead of their prior low quality answers they started posting GPT dumps. The difference this time is, because of a new suspension reason moderators now can introduce a substantial throttling (suspension) after their first few answers.

So what you've got since the advent of the new suspension reason is that the kind of users who previously could post tens if not hundreds of low quality answers at sufficiently high rate are now throttled by moderators much ealier - like, after posting just 5-10 GPT dumps.

There is your "% of content produced by frequent answerers has started to collapse" and it's not even close to happening "unexpectedly". (and if my assumption of such answerers historically tending to be from regions where rep points matter in the job market holds, there is also your observation about increase of region-specific suspensions)

GPT removal actions are not reasonably defensible

By same token, abrupt interruption of GPT related moderation is not reasonably defensible.

Quite the opposite - delay in such action is reasonably defensible. You have official procedure of introducing policy changes and this procedure justifies reasonable delay. You could (should) use such a delay to properly discuss this matter with moderators and find out how they would prefer to address it.