Wow MacHislopp, it is hard to top that research, it is very thorough, thanks.
Cofty brought up the policy of 'probation' in the 60s and 70s, I was not aware of this and indeed, it can be found on the WT Library. The last mention was in 1972 W 2/15. The earliest mention in the Library (which only goes back to the 1950 Watchtower was in 1952 3/1 under 'reinstatement' (of disfellowshipping). 'QFR" W 1954 9/1 goes into much more detail as to when and how it applied
When does probation apply? Before disfellowshiping, during it, or after reinstatement?—L. D., United States.
If a brother has done some wrong that merits disfellowshiping, yet the congregation committee feels that he should not be disfellowshiped because of his sincere repentance or other extenuating circumstances, rather than disfellowshiping him the committee might put him on probation. The committee would set the terms of this probation according to their judgment, having in mind the facts or needs of the particular case involved. If the erring brother complies fully with the terms of the probation for the period of time prescribed by the committee the probation may then be lifted and no disfellowshiping takes place.
If a brother is disfellowshiped, however, he would not also be put on probation. He is cut off from the congregation and the congregation has nothing to do with him, exercises no control over him outside the congregation, puts no restrictions on him outside in the world....
If a disfellowshiped person shows sincere repentance and desires to be reinstated, the committee may reinstate him after the lapse of what it considers a suitable length of time. When this is done the committee may wish to impose some restraints and put the individual on probation. The committee may now do this, since the person has been reinstated and is again a part of the congregation, the congregation now having resumed dealings with the individual.
Hence, in answer to the question, a person may be put on probation without disfellowshiping or after reinstatement from being disfellowshiped, but it is completely illogical for the committee to try to establish probation over a person they cast out and do not even have dealings with. They only talk to him if he comes to them to discuss the matter of his reinstatement. To illustrate, a person in society may break a law. He is convicted and sent to jail. He has been removed from the community; he is not on probation when he is disfellowshiped from society and held in jail. But when he is released and returned to society he may be put on probation and have to live under certain restraints and report regularly to some officer. Or it may be that when he is found guilty instead of being sent to jail sentence may be suspended and he is put on probation, never being removed from society...
Notice their rules states
but it is completely illogical for the committee to try to establish probation over a person they cast out and do not even have dealings with
Yet this is exactly what they are doing today. Rather than placing no authority or rulership over a disfellowshipped person because he is no longer part of the congregation, they prescribe to the dfd person what they want him to do in order to be reinstated. Among other things he must attend meetings and demonstrate to them (not God) his repentance in some physical form. Interestingly, they don't call this 'probation' but within their own definitions this is what it is. In their own words, they are now acting in an illogical manner.
So in the past, if a person was seeking to be reinstated then he was at that point in time, accepted back as a member of the congregation and simply put on restrictions/restraints.
I had wondered why a person who was disfellowshipped and rejected from the congregation was still allowed to attend and actually participate in congregational worship by joining in the prayers and songs of praises. In the past this was addressed by allowing him back into the fold but placed on restrictions but today there is no explanation as to why they have this double standard.