Thanks for sharing. I think all of those are valid points to raise.
On it being low-fidelity: I understand it is a bit low-fidelity, but I think it’s more likely it would lead to good outcomes than bad outcomes. I don’t expect or want people to learn these by heart anyway—it’s just one way to phrase/frame what the principles are.
On guiding principles being changed frequently: I think this is the more valid point.
Regarding the proposed acronym:
I didn’t consider the pro-life/pro-choice association, although I think most people wouldn’t associate it with that, so I don’t think this should be an issue.
I also didn’t think people would associate it with the choice/obligation debate. And even if people did, my guess is people are leaning on EA being a choice rather than an obligation.
So far, the acronyms CARING and SOCIAL have been suggested. I like the acronym CARING more, so if people agree with the value of using an acronym, but dislike the word CHOICE, CARING could be used.