I'd tend agree, the need for individual soldier lethality has been overcome by events to need more lethal and passive protection from sensors (Protection is weight) and indirect fire and sensor capability (new weapons are weight.)
Was the intelligence assessment reasonable 10+ years ago when the initial idea of armor globally outpacing our weapons was real, and the idea of "Increase individual soldier lethality" became these weapons and rounds? I think it was reasonable, but I also thought at the time and still do that their might be better ways to get there. There was lots of experimentation that was driving the analysis however. It wasn't entirely a justification exercise. The data was both the Chinese and Russians were within ten years be able to field weapons and armor that put our troops at disadvantage. Guess what, it wasn't just ground combat weapons, but families of missiles, improved armor, drones, EW etc. that both countries were R&Ding and trying to field.
However, one thing to keep in mind is the power of Branch within the Army to push ideas and concepts that benefit the Branch potentially at the risk of other ground combat priorities. The various branches have LOTS of power in the institutional Army.
Bookmarks