That article just about sums it up Oubliette. plausible liability.
If you meant plausible deniability then I am not so sure. I can see the reasoning behind such a conclusion however the CO will have to perform the checks that the branch were originally doing. To do so he will have to access information held at the branch. The branch maintains the records on each appointed man. I don't see that this pushes the corporate liability completely away.
I think this change is not much more than them streamlining the process and reducing man power requirement. The far more interesting things to me is (a) if this will make it easier for the CO to impose his will beyond what is currently possible and (b) if the Nov WT will promote a scriptural reason for this that actually makes it easier to ask questions as to why they have done the wrong thing for so long.