I don't have any plans like that. However, my point was the problem is lack of alternative. We say Super I Ching is not a good source for foundation, easy to agree there as its easy to see parts of it doesn't make much sense... But then we see said that Gold Yarrows is not the best source either, then the Wild Crane may not be perfect... All this is fine by itself, but then if the question "ok, what is good" comes up, the answer just can't be silence...
Who is saying nothing but silence?
Golden Yarrows and Wild Crane may be biased and tainted by their own authors and editors in some versions, but the key foundation details will always be largely the same if you read them in Chinese.
Super I Ching does not have this parity with the Chinese sources. It is an edited version (by Alex Chiu) of an edited version (by some other Author) that was translated from one language to another (Chinese to English). Many conclusions are drawn up mistakenly and many interpretation components is unable to be found replicated in the slightest fashion anywhere else. Unlike where if you are lucky enough to have time to browse through Chinese material at a non-taught level, you will eventually find the same foundation components mentioned here and there.
If you or anyone believes the sources in Chinese are unreliable, the reasons for the unreliability is probably more important than the fact that they are unreliable in of itself.
As otherwise the only thing that this will accomplish is push away the few western peoples trying to learn this system. If all material available in English is described as bad and if attempt for finding good source is halted, then the message is clear - don't try to learn this, you can't do it with the info available... And that includes even Chinese sources at times...
Which Chinese sources?
As explained above, Super I Ching, as an English source, even if compare with Raymond Lo's material very quickly diverges. So non-taught users will have a hard time trying to find what is accurate or not, or what was flat out wrong in the first place. This disparity largely does not exist in Chinese sources due to the abundance of sources available (whatever the quality of the sources may be).
And I don't mean specifically you by this, just the approach I see from time to time that seems to be one of the big problems with learning it in the west in my view. But it is the reason why if we look at free material with hundreds of examples and say to not use it, some replacement author/book/course or whatever as recommendation to be nice...
Having seen many students fall, I no longer provide such alternative sources, as what is suitable for one person is not suitable for another. Indeed, as my earlier reply, I have seen learners fall because they felt that they were empowered with capability because I provided such sources of information. And when the time came to try to advance their skill and knowledge further, they were unable to do so because they lacked what was right for them.
I am however familiar with many sources (and able to guage snippets of sources that I am not familiar with as to their worth) and can recommend or not recommend various sources assuming you have one that reads well for yourself.
It sounds very unhelpful, but once you reach a certain stage of understanding WWG, you'll recognise that what I am doing is the best way forward for each learner.