Warning: this is not card, deck, or bug feedback.
While the changes to CI&A may be a bit more directive and integrative of mechanic testing, this new system seems to have sacrificed a lot of the democratic process and even distribution of contribution that the CI&A worked so hard to achieve. Yes, it was tedious, many of us can attest to that, with some of us having been Card Curators at some point or another. However, it was tedious because it had a system, a structure, and a balance. Naturally, it had its inherent flaws such as bias of artwork, coding emphasis and time inefficiencies, and let's face it, its biggest flaw, that there exists only one Kuroaitou.
I would urge Card Curators to ensure that card contributions to Cygnia are relatively even between contributors. This should not be too difficult to implement. The current system has shown a
robust bias for some contributors, whether that be due to inherent selection process flaws or initiative on behalf of contributors, it skews Cygnia towards one design style, and in this case that of 1 or 2 contributors.
Aside, it might also be useful for the community at large to have some clarity regarding how cards are selected in order for them to be coded into Cygnia. As it stands, the rationale behind selections have been vague at best. This also may best be described as a result of the democratic process that was replaced when the changes to CI&A were implemented.
All in all, as I was alluding to in discussion with Espithel previously, Cygnia (and the Weekly Challenges) prove to be useful creation and conception tools for novice or experienced card designers alike. However, as CI&A seemingly enters a new age of integrative coding, it's important to enter the new day with caution, as we all know what is needed with great power.