I didn't think the previous new system was very good, either. We are agreed on that. I certainly said as much before now, and that opinion isn't changed.
It also sounds like we are agreed that the current system is currently not going to work well unless the law is changed or more justices are appointed. I hope one of these two things will occur soon.
The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act. I have this vague memory that it was around the same time. Ultimately, one thing I had in mind in drafting the amendment and statute was King John's concern for continuity. Hence the two-month window and the instant statutory raising to a total of five judges. I was actually trying to maintain, for now, the old system so we could adjust without running to another constitutional amendment. Overall, I was motivated by a versatililty and an efficient organic law section with the rest to be filled in by statutory law. Section 6 was meant as a safeguard if the Ziu did not act, or somehow just decided no inferior Cort.
So the issue you raise falls to me in my attempt to create something robust, independent, not subject to partisanship, but not requiring tinkering with the fundamental document of State every time we needed an update.
But there is now a bill that would fix this before implementation, and provided we get some CJs, we'd have four UC judges, a trial Cort, and, in theory, a fully functional judiciary.