I think these guidelines/requirements show a lot of thought was put into this and they seem prudent. Maybe some long term benefits will be wrung out of this, as people innovate to make things work within these requirements. It would be nice to see registration streamlined, and standing around time between runs cut down. Maybe venues will work to stand up wifi near race and parking areas (if cell coverage is garbage) and communications on inspection group times, 2nd run starts, protests, etc. all get pushed out via text.
I do agree that it's clear a lot of thought went into the guidelines, and I agree that many, if not all, are common-sense ways to mitigate risks. Streamlining registration and limiting standing time makes tons of sense to me; one of my pet peeves is when you get run 1 done early and, because the second run inspection time was posted as 12:00 instead of "to follow", you get to hang out for an extra hour.
I doubt you're going to see a lot of improvement in wifi, though; the challenges at many venues are substantial due to distance to actual networks, and I don't see it being a significant priority for most hosts when they're busy trying to figure out how to manage Covid with the general skiing public.
I think the 100 field limit is the biggie, and I hope we see some creative solutions allowing for multiple races at the same venue per day, like single run races, no re-sets between runs (which is feasible with 100 racer fields), having both courses set at the start of the day so there's no break between runs (though having inspections while a race is running is super dicey--says the guy who still cringes when remembering how he interfered with another racer's run at USCSA Regionals many years ago in this exact scenario). None of this is ideal, but it sure beats not racing at all.
With that field size limit, there's at least a reasonable chance of managing two races even with a reset. While surfaces should hold up for 100 racers (at least for firmer conditions and with a capable course crew), cutting the number of sets in half is not good for athlete or coach development. Ideally, athletes should be seeing different sets on each run.
I do agree that setting both runs before the race starts is a good idea, at least for slalom; even if you don't want people inspecting while the race is ongoing, you should be able to cut the turnover time down substantially because you no longer need to reset then inspect. Staggering inspection times per-team may have an adverse impact on inspection length, though, especially for seeded races where the team with the last inspection slot may include the first second-run competitor.
Setting a men's course and a women's course and then swapping for the second run (with a redress) is one way to cut down on the time, but the guidelines recommend single-day and single-gender races. That's great in theory to reduce exposure windows, and not having men and women's teams traveling together sounds great in principle if your club is already structured that way (which most are at the FIS level); however, for regional-focused club racing, particularly weekend programs, I think that's the exception more than the norm. If Maine went to single-gender races, it will require at least a few clubs to rework their group structures and coaching schedules.
That recommendation also just doesn't work in at least one region—Montana—where the combination of travel distances and field sizes mean that doing single-day races is definitely out, and doing single-gender events is unlikely to be workable from a host-organization financial standpoint. You might pull it off with two races per day, but even then I'm not sure, and you'd also be back to a coaching-staff-availability issue.
Re: TCMs, if meetings go virtual, I don't see why we can't do them night-before in the East. I strongly prefer that to begin with—it means you actually have a fighting chance of getting info from the TCM out to the whole team before they're headed up the hill for inspection—and virtual meetings, by definition, don't require everyone to be on site.
I do agree that it's good to see a protocol; as noted in the document, it's almost guaranteed to evolve over time, and it's tough to figure out where the strengths and weaknesses are until you have something to talk about. I expect the implementation will be very different by age level and division; the issues with a seeded race in Montana, where hitting a combined field of 100 is rare, are very different from a U10 race in Vermont, where the field-size limit is probably going to play a much bigger factor.
I wouldn't mind at all if regional USSA races stuck to a Jan. 1 start date going forward. Having races in December is silliness for the vast majority of club-level athletes and disruptive to training plans; for upper-level athletes with more on-snow time, it may make sense, but I don't see a significant loss in those USSA events going away.