the utility is not to create a second performance passport parallel to the bio-passport for sanctioning or to flag riders for more testing.
the point is to improve the specificity and sensitivity of the current bio-passport by integrating it into the biopassport
this could be done through a combined metric such as a power-OFF score
by using it as a prior (like altitude and gender) to allow tighter thresholds.
the reason you need to do this is that doping is not the only thing that changes blood parameters.
blood parameters are affected by hydration, training load, and illness. as such, the thresholds have to be set wide enough so that these other physiological processes don’t trip the passport.
for example a retic dropping from 1.0 to 0.6 in the middle of a GT could be a couple units of blood transfusion or a viral suppression.
since one would make the performance go up while the other down, power could be used to adjust the thresholds accordingly so that the under-performing rider is not flagged while the other matching their power duration profile.
one other quick point is that like blood, power is an indirect measure of doping, training, and health status. indirect markers will fundamentally have the same major pros and cons that all indirect markers do. arguing for one and against the other is a debate strategy best left to politicians. if you want to argue against power, please be consistent and argue against blood as well.