Yes, this whole turn of events seems quite interesting to me. For decades AWS has worked hard to codify and homogenize filler metal specifications for simplification, for safety, and for economics, and to minimize qualifications, and now the brand specific requirements that are finding their way into more and more specs seem to be rendering the specifications irrelevent. Or at least not as meaningful.
What does it matter if its A5.1 7018 when you gotta have Lincoln or ESAB or whatever?
Still need the generic to identify? Sure.
It would be, after all, Lincoln 7018 or whatever. But for how long?
What happens when more specific services and requirements render the need for more specific chemistries and mechanicals and more stringent testing regimes?
Proprietaries in carbon steels like in nickels?
Might be nice to hear from some filler metals guys.

I know of at least one case where brand specific fussiness might be necessary.  Back when I was a welding engineer in a D1.1 structural shop, our wonderful purchasing agent bought some wire at a 40% discount from a foreign supplier and shoved it down our throats since he claimed it was "identical" because it was from the same "spec".  The welders HATED it.  Our rejects went up.  I ran a head to head test using some of our established PQR's.  The cheap wire had porosity, worm tracks, and cracks in bend tests, whereas the "expensive" wire did not.  We forced purchasing to go back to the good stuff based upon reduced reject rates.  I suppose if it was Lincoln vs. ESAB that might not have happened, but we were talking about some fly by night on the internet no name outfit.