AirRabbit:
I've been in the simulator industry for 30 years. So for the sake of peace and quite I'll ignore the "egg-sucking lessons" you gave me in your lengthy post (I'm well aware of grandfathering, for example):
EASA and the FAA have both invested considerable time and effort in creating their respective approval standards. They aren't going to ditch those in a hurry. FAR Part 60 is part of US aviation law it so will not be so easy to change as ACs used to be. So Levels A-D will continue to be current, not grandfathered, for years to come. There have been attempts to ditch Levels A and C before, both strongly resisted by operators of same.
What may happen is that operators will seek to achieve MPL standards in addition to the meeting the FAA/EASA standards as before.
I certainly did read the whole document and found the definition of the various device types, but it is not presented in a clear or cocnise manner. Type VII effectively equates to a Level D FFS, leaving Levels A-C hanging. Many very capable FFSs exist at Level B and C which seem to be falling through the net here. The change to different terminology when the entire industry quite happily understands the existing terminology, is questionable. Defining simulators by the training that can be done on them is not new either (CAA CAP 453 did this years ago).
Some simulator operators I've spoken too were most dismayed that having got used to and upgraded to the 180 degree FOV, 200 degrees was now being discussed. With FAA and EASA regs, operators are included in the discussions and rule making. The ICAO document appears to have been constructed without the normal levels of discussion. I realise the concept of MPL introduces changes, but these should not force a re-write of existing, satisfactory and well understood standards.
As I said in answer to a previous post, the circling apprach scenario is a relatively small part of the FFS training requirement to hang such a costly change on. Operators can by all means specify such a FOV when they purchase simulators, but should it really be considered the minimum necessary?