Quite frankly, I think JW's would view this as very resonable and not blink an eye.
I'm just saying that if the new info has to do with the 2 Witness Rule............
Yes, I agree that's a good reason and that shouldn't cause any upheaval or unnecessary explanation.
But, definitely, the change, if it is 2Wtns was precipitated by the Candace Conti verdict.
Initially C.Conti attempted a policy change on the 2 Witness rule that they ignored.
The Watchtower Punished: Society loses legal battle over child abuse case
"The current policies of Jehovah’s Witnesses prevent elders from acknowledging cases of child abuse if the perpetrator denies the allegations, and if no witnesses were involved."-
The “two witness rule” – The Society believes that this rule, which is based on Deuteronomy 19:15, should be applied rigidly whenever a case of child abuse is reported. This means that if somebody molests a child without any witnesses and subsequently denies any wrongdoing, the elders will be forced to take no further action against him, and continue as though nothing has happened. Victims of child molesters and their parents are coerced into not revealing the identity of the abuser to others in the congregation, and can even be threatened with being disfellowshipped on grounds of slander if they breach this person’s confidentiality by trying to warn others. This scenario is what is normally referred to when people talk about Jehovah’s Witnesses “protecting pedophiles”, because pedophiles can (and do) easily take advantage of the Society’s leniency in order to repeatedly abuse children over many years whilst escaping punishment or exposure.( From Cedars blog)
But, again, those scriptures should not have be applicable to children. And they also need to change the way elders handle the way they treat known pedos in the cong.
Neither of these would have a major impact on the JW belief- they will most likely be agreeable to these changes.