I am not defending the re-allocation. My personal stays will be shorter or cost more, but I can see the benefits if one considers the membership "as a whole".
My point is that if I want a studio but can never book one, but now I can get one because other members now can't stay so many nights, that's a benefit.
I think that is a good way of looking at it.
Also, I think, if someone was really planning to hold Disney's feet to the fire, one should look at what booking looks like at 60 days (or whenever breakage happens). If most owners are like me, I only know how tough stuff is at 11 months and 7 months, but for reallocation justification, Disney would be looking at 60 days. In other words, 1 bedrooms might be super easy to get at 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, but actually fill up by 2 months or 1 month (I don't know the real numbers, this is just a hypothetical). In that case, Disney might have a justification for raising 1 bedrooms.
I don't necessarily agree with that logic, but it is defensible as rational.
In other words, if DVC divides rooms/seasons into buckets, one labeled "Rooms that wind up in Breakage" and "Rooms that do not wind up in Breakage," they can justify lowering the points on the former and raising the points on the latter. It could be that 1 bedrooms linger for months, but do end up getting booked on points eventually and have low breakage rates.
I actually feel better about all this.