Unless the AKC were to eliminate O/H Qs entirely from the equation for QAA status, the adding of the QA2 suffix should not erode quality overall. Even with an O/H Q succeeding twice with a red or blue would mean more than succeeding just once, for the present status of QAA. That should act to promote quality rather than erode it.
For those not well-versed in the FT game ... they have the same problem in discernment when faced with someone who is promoting a dog's QAA status or QA2 status. They don't know what either one really means anyhow. It is for those well-versed that the designations carry any meaning at all.
Many FT people acknowledge that the skill level of a Q today is very much higher than it was 20 years ago, yet we really wouldn't down-grade some of the great dogs of even 30 or 40 years ago. I suspect that this raising of the bar trend even applies to the O/H Q level. If history is any guide, this trend is likely to continue. So, by encouraging these O/H Qs will make for a broader base of quality as the trend continues.
Again, I believe it is very difficult to convey the difference this makes for the minority breeds (as compared to Labs) where there are far fewer choices for stronger field capabilities. Many of those who want to retain strong field ability in their minority breed will probably never find enough owners to provide any significant challenge to the undisputed position of Labs in FTs.
However, it can make those breeds better (more field capable overall) for the attempts at improvement. Probably there will always be people who would rather have a Chessie than a Lab, no matter what; or a Flat-Coat or a Curly or a Golden or a Toller or an IWS. I can see no downside to attempting to make each of them as good as they can be in their field aspect.