lawman Hopefully, the development team might revisit and consider that solutions for both low and high competent adversaries are both useful depending on the user needs, which they can determine. For me personally, solutions for low competent authorites is hugely useful including with hidden profiles.
I think maybe from the outside it is not clear just how entangled Android internals are, meaning that some changes that seem as if they should be easy, and arguably should be easy, actually aren't.
Meanwhile, for GrapheneOS to quickly track new AOSP releases from Google, it is also necessary to quickly adapt all code written by the project: it's not possible to write code once and have it keep working, especially not when the code changes the behavior of parts of the system that Google is also changing, such as the user-profile machinery. In a sense every line of code written by the GrapheneOS project represents future maintenance labor that must be added to the already-existing future maintenance labor of all previous GrapheneOS code.
Since writing code includes the necessity of rewriting it later in response to Google changes on a schedule that can't be predicted, it is not surprising if the project chooses to focus on writing code that can provide stronger guarantees. The result may be that some features that are desirable to some users, that could be written, may not be.