Why does it need to be addressed? They're still prospects.
As I suggested, it makes year to year comparisons difficult. You could as 'who gives a crap' which I would respond with : I do
I like to compare the evaluations of prospects between organizations and between years. I think that it improves my understanding of the quality of a prospect, and it helps me identify which sources are better.
For example I am watching to see if Pronman's method of evaluation (weighted heavily on puck possession) is superior.
I can also spot players that are trending good or bad as well. (Filatov is an example. He followed the classic trend of a bust).
Since HF is a great source of material, I was simply curious if they had had any internal discussions based around what they might do.
Doing absolutely nothing is likely the best choice, but they might come up with something else.