This is an interesting topic. Having lived through all sorts of variations of speed requirements, stable approach policies (from ultra-strict to none at all) and aeroplane limitations/SOPs, I think it has got faintly ridiculous now. Many airlines’ SAPs are borderline incompatible with some airfields’ restrictions and aircraft end up being operated in a manner that is not really what you would call good airmanship in the widest sense.
Why do we try and fly stable approaches? Well, one reason is because the employer says so but more importantly, it allows a crew to monitor their aeroplane and the environment and react in a timely and appropriate manner to any issues. If large part of available capacity is used to make artificial gates that are sometimes mutually conflicting, there follows that there is much less capacity to assess and predict. I have been on flight decks where three or four pilots are so busy with the speed control and stability process that the proverbial gorilla could climb over the windscreen and no-one would see it, which is not a great place to be.
Where is one of the worst places to encounter microbursts and/or windshear? Low level near an airport, so hanging on the thrust levers and speed brakes in an odd configuration approaching 1000R will mask some signs that things may be going wrong and if they do, make the recovery that much harder.
IMO there needs to be a bit more joined-up thinking involving all stakeholders (I’m starting to sound like an exec.) and not having external requirements coming from different directions. In my airline we have a 1000R stable policy but you can legitimately bust that if it’s because of ATC speed control - where’s the sense in that? Nasty things can happen irrespective of whether you’re under speed control or not.