At the risk of being really unpopular I think the two witness thing is increasingly a red herring.
In the past there have been countless examples of where the elders have not acted on accusations because of two witnesses not being available. They have also not supported, suggested or taken any other positive action to ensure an accusation is reported to the authorities and in some case have gone so far as colluded to ensure an accusation has been suppressed.
The current guidelines to elders as a result of the ARC and other negative publicity has changed the framework. Elders still will not take congregation action unless they have the evidence of two witnesses. They will now accept the word of a different person or evidence from the authorities as a second witness. They are also instructed to ensure that the victim is clear they can go to the authorities even if the elders cannot take congregation action themselves.
I would agree with those that would suggest this still falls short of what they should be doing in terms of self-imposed mandatory reporting, active support of reporting and so on but is a step in the right direction and should prevent the repetition of these cases where the victim and family have felt it impossible to report an accusation to the authorities.
The two witness rule still applies to congregation action and this certainly leaves a risk that a perpetrator may still be free to access other vulnerable people if the elders take no action to monitor their behaviour. There is still a risk that an accusation may remain unreported if the victim or family decide not to report it themselves. There are still plenty of areas that the WTS should feel ashamed about in terms of their protection policy however I think there has been steps taken to separate the two witness rule and congregation judicial action from the secular side of things and that criticism of the policy should be focused onto those areas that still remain astonishingly weak and out of step with current best practice.