while I unfortunately haven't kept an example of this, but a line of reasoning I've seen used quite commonly in Watchtower magazines of the past, is that really a really simplistic example is used at the beginning of an article, and latter in the same study article, its used as prima facia for a heavier application.
Following along with this reasoning, the Governing Body could very well tie lifting the beard sanction, the field service reporting adjustment and now the toasting issue together, as a basis of a more larger change.
But to me, this just underscores the weakness of the Governing Body and their real lack of manly leadership. Because instead of standing up to make a difficult decision and owning the fallout, they play this game to minimize their loss of face by literally involving God, by claiming that these changes are part of Jehovah's blessing.