I hope the planned resumption of flying is due to the reported change in eruption emissions, but I do worry it's more to do with economics. I have no doubt that companies will hide behind the authority and responsibility of the commanders if incidents do start occurring, rather taking responsibility themselves, whilst putting unequivocal pressure on crews to operate regardless of their individual concerns. That legal and employment concern is still second to my safety concerns.
The test flights have proven nothing. The military aircraft which were damaged suffered that damage in just a few hours in relatively low density areas. Commercial aircraft will operate many times the duration of those F16s and F18s in a single day, and while the damage to those fighters did not cause engine failure, such prolonged flight in the ash as we will do could quite conceivable do so as the glass accumulates. I doubt that any aircraft will suffer serious issues on the first flights, or maybe even in the first day, but unless the engines are boroscoped very frequently, sooner or later events will start to occur.
I am not trained, paid or insured as a test pilot. Those who insist this is an over-reaction and that normal ops should continue are ignoring every piece of real evidence of numerous scientists, engineers and several broken aeroplanes. They lack the judgement and attitude to be safe pilots, and it's sad to see that so many of them exist.