The most significant argument for this change I heard (or understood at my level) is that in the event of a roll off (left post) you would be in better shape loosing your wing inflation than your dry suit inflation. The argument went thusly:
In order to have a roll off you are in an overhead environment, such as a cave, and have contact with the ceiling. The most likely way to have this contact is when entering a descending section of cave/wreck from either a horizontal or ascending section (eg when swimming over a hump or restriction then heading down hill) and bumping the ceiling as it slopes down towards you. In this case you are descending in a head down position. As you descend, as we all know, you get increasingly negative and accelerate downwards unless air is added to one of your two (usually both) buoyancy control mechanisms: dry suit and wing. If one was to loose the wing, buoyancy could be controlled by adding air to the dry suit. However if dry suit inflation capability is lost, one might become so pinched in the descent as to restrict or prevent movement and therefore be unable to inflate the wing or perform any other activity.
Well, let's see- the last place I want to go adding gas in this scenario is my drysuit- why? Because you are already slightly (or more if entering a wreck hold) inverted, ergo the gas goes right to your feet... In fact, I can't think of any scenario where adding large volumes of gas to the drysuit to stop a rapid descent would be preferable to doing the same with the wing. Drysuit squeeze is bad argument for this reasoning. I have experience drysuit squeeze to the extent that I had broken skin and serious bruising- while wearing a 400G undergarment- guess what- I could still move well enough to manipulate valves. Bad reasoning.
Personally, I agree with Sparticle, this is a solution in search of a problem. I can't imagine that anyone who has really thought this through thinks it has real merit.