This discussion needs to be more about the way standards define units of information and the purposes they're put to and less about punctuation.
ISBD 1.3.2 on Other title information says, "Additional other title information is included if it is necessary for identification or otherwise considered important to users of the catalogue." In other words, ISBD includes information which may be "necessary for identification" as part of other title information, while RDA bases the "identifying" title for access on title proper plus prescribed qualifiers.
ISBD units of description are based on how the information appears. The fact that information necessary to identification falls outside the title proper so defined is not a concern, as long as it's included elsewhere in the ISBD description. ISBD is not prescribing access points.
Adopting the ISBD notion of title proper in RDA and defining title proper as the basis of access points means building access points on titles that are not distinct. The question should not be how to pack other title information into the title proper, but how to include identifying other title information as part of an RDA authorized access point--as qualifying information added to the title proper--when it's needed and useful for identification.
This would mean that a 245 transcription and a 130 access point for the same title--one describing the manifestation and the other naming the work-- could differ, and we'd need to put both in the record.
130 0 $a Star trek, the next generation (History and episode list of the TV show)
245 10 $a Star trek, the next generation : $b a history and episode list of the TV show
When a resource lacks necessary identifying information, ISBD 18.104.22.168, Incomplete or ambiguous titles, recommends supplying it as bracketed other title information. That seems like a compatible parallel to adding a phrase from other title information in a distinguishing parenthetical qualifier to an RDA access point when the qualifying information is not part of the title proper. Maybe the two standards are not quite as discrepant as they appear.
I'm not claiming that this is all sanctioned under current RDA and LC-PCC PSs, but the loose definitions of Other distinguishing characteristics of works in RDA 6.6.1 and MARC 381 and the LC-PCC PS for 22.214.171.124 are all fairly open ended when it comes to distinguishing qualifiers for works. The last mentions "descriptive data elements" as a possible qualifier terms, and Other title information is a descriptive data element. The above comes closer to satisfying both ISBD and RDA and usefully distinguishing works than shoehorning other title information into the title proper.