................I’m not sure if you understand a very important fact.
When the mandate was originally implemented for VFR aircraft in Class G airspace to monitor and announce if in potential conflict, it was also mandatory for IFR aircraft to give full position reports – even in surveillance coverage.
This was because there was a demarcation issue between flight service officers and air traffic controllers. Pilots flying in uncontrolled airspace were forced to monitor and announce on a flight service frequency, however the flight service officers were in a different room to the air traffic controllers and did not have a radar/surveillance screen.
Are you sure of the veracity of this very important fact?
I think you are getting your Air Traffic Services set up pre and post alphabet airspace implementation mixed up. There was no demarcation issue. You seem to forget what uncontrolled airspace was, and why it was called uncontrolled. And it still is.
I honestly don't see what your problem is with all this. If the IFR is under surveillance by ATC in G, the ATC will assess the observed VFR traffic and advise the IFR accordingly if a conflict is determined to be likely. Then dialogue between aircraft can commence. Of course the VFR will be maintaining a listening watch and can now respond. If the IFR is outside ATC surveillance, it will be making the appropriate position reports and the VFR who is of course maintaining a listening watch can announce if there is a potential conflict. It is the same result, except one is determined by a third party, and results in less frequency congestion, which is a good outcome.
Pilots intercepting broadcasts from aircraft in their vicinity which are considered to be in potential conflict with their own aircraft must acknowledge
There is nothing wrong with this statement in the regs. The regs don't say who determines the potential conflict. Sometimes ATC does. The VFR just
has to be listening and respond when appropriate.