Sharing some thoughts here re: the metagame, several of the proposed tiering solutions, recent events, etc., against my better judgment...
On the Metagame Generally 
While it is clear that a large number of players are dissatisfied with the results of the Tera suspect, I do not think the tier is in such utter disarray that we need to take drastic measures to stabilize it moving forward. I have personally tried to be as active in the Nat Dex tour scene as my life will allow, playing near the max number of Winter SSNL games, World Cup, a full NDLT ladder cycle with playoffs in addition to several suspects and smaller tours. To say that the present metagame is unplayable or hopelessly unsalvageable feels hyperbolic, and does not fairly account for how much progress has been (and still can be) made through reasonably timed and measured tiering decisions. Early SSNL games felt like pure matchup fishing, for reasons I need not unpack. By the end of SSNL, games felt stable enough to allow more traditional balance structures a fighting chance to succeed, with Zamazenta easily surviving a suspect test in early April as people began to feel more comfortable fitting natural answers to strong wallbreakers such as this. Subsequently, we banned all three of Annihilape, Walking Wake and Shed Tail. This did a world of good for bulkier teams to have a shot at existing at all, and we saw some development and different takes on those structures both during early team tours and as NDWC progressed. Conversely, offense took some reasonable hits as the prevalence of screens HO died down with the Espathra and Shed Tail bans, and while Rain is still incredibly consistent, I no longer see much discussion about banning things like Damp Rock or individual rain abusers as was once considered. I raise all of these points not to distract from the problems that the tier still has, but to emphasize that we can and have made reasonable adaptations notwithstanding Tera’s presence in the tier, and the metagame is surely not the same or worse today as it was several months ago.
How to Approach Tiering Moving Forward
Moving from the past to the present, the only form of immediate tiering action that makes sense to me would be
a Kingambit suspect test within the coming weeks. To be fully transparent, I personally believe Kingambit is a necessary evil for this tier, serving both an indispensable defensive role as a blanket soft-check on bulkier teams while serving as a panic-button check to many faster, boosted offensive threats that could otherwise snowball out of control. I think the tier has enough options to keep it in check, and if you are trying to reduce variance within a tier, banning a role-compressing defensive glue and popular revenge killer seems contrary to that goal. My personal thoughts aside, however, Kingambit has unquestionably been the supreme overlord of the tier for some time, it is arguably the most egregious Tera abuser we have, and it has late-game sweeping potential that must be accounted for both in the builder and during games on a level incomparable to anything else we have seen. You cannot even say that Kingambit forces “50/50” interactions, as I am sure when you factor in Sucker mind games, about six or seven viable Tera types on top of Pursuit mind games and the potential for Iron Head flinching, your odds are probably less than 50% and far more situationally determined than anything else. This is an issue I feel the community should ultimately decide, and regardless of the result, I believe the council would have far greater clarity as to how to proceed on other potential targets given how intimately their fate is wedded to Kingambit's fate in the tier.
Other Tiering Proposals 
As for the other proposals, this is probably evident but I am not fond of mass-Quickban slates or “kokoloko-esq” ban and retest waves. These approaches are often proposed under the nebulous guise of “lowering the power level” of the tier, with the implication being that if we simply reduce the number of offensive threats and/or remove the most powerful offenders, it will allow for a less-centralized approach to teambuilding. In turn, this should ideally free up teambuilding resources to allow players to cover a greater number of overall matchups, thus reducing the number of auto-losses at team preview.
This sounds great in theory, until you try and articulate what the end goal is supposed to look like when you apply this ideology in practice. I have no idea what the “optimal” power level should be in a tier with this many options and mechanics to choose from. You have to accept at some point that you may build an excellent team that simply cannot cover every matchup, and that you will likely struggle in those matchups. This was largely US East’s teambuilding approach throughout NDWC, and you can judge by the result whether it was a successful philosophy or not. At some point the community will need to draw a line as to what level of variance is acceptable and what level is too much, and now that the “what should we do about Tera” question has been resolved, I see this as the primary focus of tiering moving forward.
Reducing Power Level vs Reducing Variance 
Moreover, I am not convinced that there is a direct connection between the current power level of the tier and the overall level of variance you have to account for in the builder, which is the actual root cause of the issues in the present metagame. During the “Big 5” metagame last generation (ft.
), the power level of the tier was
clearly the root of the problem. You could not run SpDef Hippowdon or AV Tangrowth and still hope to stave off Mega Metagross, just as you could not often get away with mixed EV Toxapex with Ash-Greninja and Dracovish simultaneously running around together, nor could you stomach Wicked Blows from Urshifu for too long without very specific defensive cores to begin with. The power level of these pokemon forced teams to be constructed to cover specific threats at the expense of others, and the teambuilding flowchart broke down to a point where it no longer made sense to run anything apart from the extremes.
Comparing this to the present metagame, the issue is not that we have a small handful of powerful centralizing offensive threats which require individually separate answers, as we did during “Big 5”. The issue is that we have a much larger pool of individually manageable offensive threats, whose many viable permutations cannot be fully accounted for in a team of six pokemon. I think the way to address this problem moving forward is to focus less on whether individual pokemon are “broken” in a traditional sense, and focus more on their net-impact on the level of variance within the tier. Putting this into practice, I believe this approach better accounts for more defensively oriented pokemon like Garganacl, Heatran and Gliscor, who can shut down teams without being any more powerful now than they were before, as well as pokemon like Volcarona, Sneasler, Baxcalibur, potentially Cresselia, etc. that may have the tools to beat you on preview but probably do not pass the threshold for "brokenness" under traditional definitions.
Conclusion
If people see things differently then I encourage them to share their thoughts to the contrary of whatever I have provided here. We are all better-served if people feel able to share things here, rather than handing the counsel unscientific survey data once every few months only to inevitably complain that they took the wrong approach.
Tl:dr – Suspect Kingambit, tier with net-impact on variance in mind, monitor the meta and go from there.
