Maybe a visioning exercise would help. I agree with John Hostage and others that we need to be moving toward differentiation based on identifiers, not qualifiers. But that doesn't necessarily mean an abandonment of qualifying information. Actually, it should mean a presentation of more diverse and complete qualifying information. The essential shift is to recognize that name searches need to lead first to descriptions of named entities, not to their associated bib descriptions.
Currently a name search finds name data appended to a resource description. Brief displays of aggregated data from resource descriptions are the search's result--e.g., including title, author, publication statement with date, class number, availability. Suppose instead, the first result was aggregated data about the named entity--e.g., preferred name, variant names with different entry elements, dates, activity terms, profession terms, associated titles. That could come from an authority record. Names not associated with an authority could still aggregate selected titles that the name is associated with in bib descriptions for a brief display. Clicking on the brief display could open up a more complete representation; but in most cases, the brief display would suffice. Moreover, it would be a better basis for choosing which name represents one's target than an alphabetical list of AAPs; and it would afford more precision in in accessing that person's works than the current jumbled melange of resources by various entities which result from keyword based name searches.
Identifiers would be a better basis for this kind of aggregation of data about named entities than name strings. It's the possibility of doing such aggregation of named entity data to support users' trying to find and select resources based on an interest in a named entity that drives my interest in identifiers, not any abstract valorization of identifiers per se.