I view the current tools as more of a multiplier of base skill.

A 1x engineer may become a 5x engineer, but a -1x will also produce 5x more bad code.

Several experiments have shown quality of output at every skill level drops.

In many cases the quantity of output is good enough to compensate, but quality is extremely difficult to improve at scale. Beefing up QA to handle significantly more code of noticeably lower quality only goes so far.

Can you say more as to why? The concept is not complex and in our situation at least provides a lot of benefits.

I think the guy that created it has even stated he thinks it's a bad idea

Literally the reason’s for git’s existence is to make merging diverging histories less complicated. Adding back the complexity misses the point entirely.