If we were to divide the IDN space into two side
(a) resolution involving end-users, IDNA-clients, apps developers, etc
(b) IDN registration & administration involving registrants, Registries, Registrars, NICs etc
The goal for the JET document is really for (b), not (a). This is not to say that the we totally ignore the end-users. If the deployment of registration policy helps the end-users, that would be nice but our priority is on (b).
That is why there is a focus on reducing dispute and less on "reducing confusing to end-users". We understand that such method is incomplete and we clearly stated that "the issues for CJK variants are complex and the guideline only forms part of the solutions".
On a more personal note, I would advise that you dont go near the slippery slope of "reducing confusion for all end-users". This would more likely going to re-open the questions of how variants (particularly TC-SC) in in IDNA/Nameprep.
This might make sense to the registrants, but it will still be confusing to end users for whom X and Y are variants, and I think we should be trying to help all users, not just registrants. And even the registrants, after they discover that their domains are being confused by some users, might start complaining.