Two thoughts:
1. Are they attempting to deal with the notion that this increasing number of children who have been baptized the last few years, since they really didn't know what they were doing, should have their baptisms declared invalid? When I was in, there was an occasional re-baptism, most often because the person involved didn't understand what he or she was doing, sometimes having gotten baptized without having gone through the 80 questions first. At some of the big assemblies with 80+ baptismal candidates, some newbies just got in the baptismal line and got dunked.
Perhaps more recently there have already been problems with some Witness parents whose baptized youngsters have gotten in trouble, and such parents have told the local BOE/CO that their kid should not be subject to congo discipline because he/she was baptized without understanding the full implications of what it means. It would not surprise me if this is a cause of the first point in the WT study article: tough luck. A baptism is a baptism, regardless of how young the person was.
2. It will be interesting to see whether the second point regarding a spouse separating b/c their mate learned some of the TTATT and became "apostate" has led or will lead to a new kind of problem. We all remember how many terrible marriages there are in JW land, and how some of those suffering in that situation would go to great lengths to undo their marriage, consulting together and plotting infidelity so as to get a scriptural divorce. Should we find it surprising then if now certain grossly incompatible sufferers are plotting, "Well, you 'go apostate' so that we can get a separation. After some time when we're both free to remarry, you can pretend repentance and they'll let you back in." I can surely picture such a scenario. If so, then down the line the GB and their lackeys will have to address this—in a future WT study article!