(1) I like the longer Summary speech — though it now typically functions as a second rebuttal speech, which is okay as it furthers clash in the round.
(2) I haven’t noticed much of a change. Many teams still use 2 minutes (or less) of prep time. It may be somewhat helpful for novices to have 3 minutes, and it does create space for evidence challenges (see answer to question 3).
(3) I have not seen much of a change in how evidence is used. I do think it would be helpful if the NSDA provided some resources (not rules) about how to handle evidence challenges. How should a team ask to see their opponent’s evidence? When in a round should a team ask to see their opponent’s evidence? How should a team provide evidence? How does an evidence challenge affect prep time? I think many teams know there are times when they should challenge an opponent’s evidence, but they don’t know how to do it so they don’t do it.
(4) Revised Grand Crossfire language has not caused a substantial change in practice. Sometimes Grand Crossfire is beneficial. Sometimes it’s not. The idea of turning the first two crossfires into grand crossfires is interesting, but I fear it would result in second speakers dominating rounds — asking and answering most questions in both crossfires. Maybe a couple of states could pilot “No Grand Crossfire” PF for a year to see if PF is better without Grand Cross.