Gee Dee Vee, don't mince words, tell us how you really feel
What Rolls is doing is common practice in the industry. The have a part that's failing prematurely. They analyze the problem with all the available data - since this is basically a 'wear out mode', they determine how many hours/cycles the part can take before there is a significant risk of failure. They put some safety pad on the numbers and say something like 'after xxxx cycles (or hours), inspect to make sure the part is still healthy - if it's not take it out of service, if it's OK you can operate another xxx cycles then inspect again. This happens on a regular basis, to every engine manufacturer (not to mention the rest of the aircraft), and 99.9% of the time it works fine and most people never even know it's going on.
This time, Rolls botched the analysis and the part is failing much faster than they predicted - whoops... Worse, they also determined that there is a resonance issue that can cause an engine to fail prematurely when operated for an extended period at max con power - double whoops. So they updated their analysis based on the latest data - and updated the requirements accordingly to maintain safety.
You apparently take issue with the process - well lets consider the alternative. Every time we discover an issue with an aircraft component, we ground the whole
fleet until a fix is identified and implemented. We would all just stay home because no one would be able to fly, and everyone in the industry would be bankrupt or unemployed.