I hate to call it a "flaw", certainly, but it is one factor that makes running ADRP intimidating to the novice GM. Most games are such that a person with little RPG experience can quickly get into the game with fast-play type rules. Some games require a bit more work to get started. Amber is really hard to play at first because it's so different than most games on the market.
Amber isn't meant to be for novice GMs. And in any case I've been GMing Amber since I was 16. Not particularly well (at that age) mind you, but I was doing it. So it can't be all that hard.
Learned it all by myself, too.
The problem is, the second you have the would-be author of 2nd edition coming in and saying, "ok, let's make some guidelines", you will be killing the potential freedom of the GM to set his own campaign. If you define "if you try to do x with WAR, then y should happen", you are instantly defining something about WAR that suddenly hamstrings the GM. It means that suddenly WAR has to be the same power level in every campaign, and thus the creativity of the GM is out the window.
If you define that "in the case of b, STR should supplant WAR as the attribute for the contest", then you will immediately have all the little rules lawyers of the world doing "b" just because they KNOW that has to be the end result, and the creativity of the player is out the window, replaced by the same kind of mechanical "actions for the sake of modifiers" that you see happening in other RPGs.
There's no way I can see of putting in the kinds of guidelines that you are talking about without killing the independence of the system and the ability to toolkit it to your liking. Putting these kinds of rules in a new edition would make Amber a POORER game, not a better one.
RPGPundit