Unfortunately, it’s my understanding that the proposal was completely reversed at JSC, so that no “other designation” would be included in an access point except in case of conflict.
Last weekend I walked through the various proposals discussed by the JSC, reading over what they reviewed and the outcomes given by John Attig on his blog. Attig wrote: "6JSC/BL/13: Revision of RDA 9.6. This proposal seeks to adjust the core requirements for the element Other designation associated with the person, as well as the instructions for including this element in authorized access points representing persons. The proposal was approved[!], with minor wording revisions. In addition, the JSC approved LC suggestions for revisions to (a) the lists of core elements at 0.6.4 and 8.3; and to (b) the instructions for constructing authorized access points at 220.127.116.11."
The LC response (here: <http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-BL-13-LC-response.pdf>) includes, among others, a revised 18.104.22.168 on adding to access points fictitious character monikers to names not conveying the idea of a person. The same response had a revised 22.214.171.124.6 to give such monikers in cases of conflict, with the option to give it even when there is not conflict (much like dates or fuller forms of name); whether this particular bit won out, I don't know. The changes in LC's 0.6.4 and 8.3 core element lists tells us that these elements are core for fictitious persons, and also used for conflict breaking, mirroring the access point guidelines above. (The LC wording of these core instructions leaves out the "conveying the idea of a person" clause, however).