Ignoring for the moment the politics of watering down the testing rules, I think you may have missed something, so apologies if the next paragraph is a bit 'I knew that'

There are two situations an RCD operates -

A metallic fault path via the CPC, that probably has a lot more current than 30ma or 150mA - so a test at almost any current will assure the suitability for that purpose. Here the problem is the touch voltaeg present on the exposed 'earthed' metalwork while the fault current is passing - if the CPC path and the live are the same resistance (TN assumption) then the exposed voltage will be around 120V, and ADS that operates within half a heartbeat (taken as 0,4 seconds) is OK for the protection of human life.

for TT the voltage jump is more like 200V, and that assumed safe disconnection time falls to 0,2 seconds

Considerably slower would be fine for protection against fire, but except for submains, this is not normally the  condition we care about.

The second class is where the human is in the loop - the classic barefeet on the grass, damaged  lawnmower flex in hand (ignoring the non-electrical foolishness of using a lawn mower in bare feet).

This case tests the RCD, as the current you are supposed to be able to tolerate for a long period is less than 30mA, and so there is no need to to disconnect at anything less than 30mA , but a real RCD  may knock off at not a lot above 15-20. The body resistance will be very variable, from tens of k ohms to hundreds of ohms, depending on contact area, sweat, and of course the current will depend on this and the rest of the current path - paving slabs or puddle are very different.

A modern A type RCD must still be capable of passing any test that a compliant  AC type would have passed, and in addition has its behaviour better defined for some un-smoothed DC conditions as well, where an AC may act up.
Now my understanding is that the makers say if it passes at the higher current, then that's OK, and at one point it looked like test at 5 times only was going to be the reccomendation in the standards now reflect this. But there is no technical reason not to test at 30mA, and if you do , you should expect it to trip, promptly. After all, this is the only safety of life case.
So the new requirement is a bit of a kludge to fit all cases.

Regardless of RCD type, e.g. AC, A, F or B, an alternating current test shall be used at the rated residual operating current (I_Δn), with a maximum operating time not exceeding 300 ms for general non-delay type RCDs.

The assumption is that a shock of this duration is safe, and in most cases, the device will speed up as the fault impedance falls, and usually will be a lot faster.

Certainly, most of the modern ones that have touched my meter in the last few years have either been dead, and not tripped at any current, or have fired off within a few 10s of msec at 30mA.

Mike.

Ignoring for the moment the politics of watering down the testing rules, I think you may have missed something, so apologies if the next paragraph is a bit 'I knew that'

There are two situations an RCD operates -

A metallic fault path via the CPC, that probably has a lot more current than 30ma or 150mA - so a test at almost any current will assure the suitability for that purpose. Here the problem is the touch voltaeg present on the exposed 'earthed' metalwork while the fault current is passing - if the CPC path and the live are the same resistance (TN assumption) then the exposed voltage will be around 120V, and ADS that operates within half a heartbeat (taken as 0,4 seconds) is OK for the protection of human life.

for TT the voltage jump is more like 200V, and that assumed safe disconnection time falls to 0,2 seconds

Considerably slower would be fine for protection against fire, but except for submains, this is not normally the  condition we care about.

The second class is where the human is in the loop - the classic barefeet on the grass, damaged  lawnmower flex in hand (ignoring the non-electrical foolishness of using a lawn mower in bare feet).

This case tests the RCD, as the current you are supposed to be able to tolerate for a long period is less than 30mA, and so there is no need to to disconnect at anything less than 30mA , but a real RCD  may knock off at not a lot above 15-20. The body resistance will be very variable, from tens of k ohms to hundreds of ohms, depending on contact area, sweat, and of course the current will depend on this and the rest of the current path - paving slabs or puddle are very different.

A modern A type RCD must still be capable of passing any test that a compliant  AC type would have passed, and in addition has its behaviour better defined for some un-smoothed DC conditions as well, where an AC may act up.
Now my understanding is that the makers say if it passes at the higher current, then that's OK, and at one point it looked like test at 5 times only was going to be the reccomendation in the standards now reflect this. But there is no technical reason not to test at 30mA, and if you do , you should expect it to trip, promptly. After all, this is the only safety of life case.
So the new requirement is a bit of a kludge to fit all cases.

Regardless of RCD type, e.g. AC, A, F or B, an alternating current test shall be used at the rated residual operating current (I_Δn), with a maximum operating time not exceeding 300 ms for general non-delay type RCDs.

The assumption is that a shock of this duration is safe, and in most cases, the device will speed up as the fault impedance falls, and usually will be a lot faster.

Certainly, most of the modern ones that have touched my meter in the last few years have either been dead, and not tripped at any current, or have fired off within a few 10s of msec at 30mA.

Mike.