What do you find offensive or hostile?
I've been struggling to figure out how to explain the issue, but I abort the posts because they turn into a walls of text filled with negative rehashing of past events or inflammatory explanations of why it's such a big problem. I'll try.
I don't think most people at the WMF realize just how bad things got. To quote the Letter to Wikimedia Foundation, signed by a thousand editors, Longtime and respected Wikimedians... repeatedly discussed whether it is time to create a fork of Wikimedia projects. I want to note that a fork attempt is not the worst case scenario. Things could have gone in a much easier and uglier direction. (For the record, I shut down fork-talk when it showed up in an RFC I was running.)
The conflict started over a rather petty issue. It was a disagreement over a default setting, on a feature that was substantially cosmetic. Whichever way it went, anyone could pretty much be unaffected the issue by personally opting-in or opting-out. I know staff believed survey numbers showed that readers liked it, but eventually the WMF acknowledged the positive numbers were wrong and that the survey actually showed a majority of our readership didn't want it. I bet most staff are unaware of that.
That petty matter then became a war against our essential foundation of consensus, waging a war against the community itself, violating one of our most serious taboos (abuse of trusted technical access as a battleground tactic to "win" a reasonable disagreement by force), and threatening at-will revocation of admins as a weapon in that war. Then the WMF flat out declared it was unwilling to participate in any discussion to resolve the issue. The WMF declared the issue "out of scope" for discussion.
The community has this odd notion that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and that the core community are more than mere Facebook users. We could go over the history of why the community has this odd notion, we could be debate whether it is true or whether should be true, but a lot of people do believe it. The community will passionately defend the project against threats to the foundation of the project, even if that perceived threat is the WMF itself.
Use of force to defeat consensus is viewed as such a threat. The WMF often says it's a member of the community, but it's impossible to be a member of a consensus-based-community and stand over it as a King at the same time. The WMF can't declare that it knows better what's good for us and impose it by force, without coming across as condescending, patronizing, disrespectful, abusive, and a threat to the project. The WMF can't do that without treating the Community like a bunch of Facebook users.
When people read this essay, they are going to read it exactly in the context of Superprotect events. They are going to read it to see if that outcome would have changed. The checkpoints won't be viewed as changing the scenario at all - the WMF was already polite and "shook hands" while disregarding any feedback that didn't advance the project. The "blockers" will be seen as a patronizing fiction: the WMF already "declined" a Global Consensus that it didn't like, and this essay says the WMF plans to do it again. The essay ends with the exact same conclusion as before. Nothing has changed.
I asked what happens if the WMF follows your process, if the WMF declines a Global Consensus, and the community disables the product? What happens next? If you don't answer that question, people will simply fill in the same answer that we got before. The endpoint of your essay will be taken as a face-value declaration of the intended outcome, it will be taken as declaring that the WMF intents to use Superprotect or admin-revocation or whatever other means of force to carry out the essay's outcome.
If you don't answer that question, that is the answer people will hear.