Okay, I think the way they worded that statement confused me. Reading it again, it maks more sense to me.
Anyway, this doesn't really torpedo any of their antitypical teachings. They're not making any hard-and-fast rules here, they're simply saying they are "reluctant" to make antitypical applications. So for the teachings they need to preserve, like Daniel 4 which ties into 1914, they will simply say that the evidence for certain antitypical interpretations is overwhelming.
Personally I think this whole study lesson is much ado about nothing, because they haven't been writing articles about detailed typology for years now. It's more like a declaration of the current GB's feelings on the matter than any sort of notable doctrinal change.