It IS accurate to say "two different trajectories". There were two main elements here - the tower component and the base/podium. The Tower element remains although in a very modified form. However the podium is essentially gone and with it any opportunity to see whether in the 21st century a motivated proven architect could create an engaging street level presence with a clean slate.
Keesmatt was too conservative to take that risk on her watch. So we have safe, functional, warehouses. Nothing wrong with letting other countries do the bold experimentation for us - its the safe approach.
Sure, one could say that there have been at least two different trajectories for this ONE site proposal (there may possibly have been earlier "trajectories" that the public never got to see. Who knows?). But then so what? The last three-tower iteration was still a work in progress. The first two-tower iteration is still a work in progress.
There is no doubt that the podium has shrunk when compared to the three-tower version. But at the same time, there has been some heritage retention, repurposing of some existing structures and the preservation of the Princess of Wales theatre - a plus for the Entertainment District.
With regards to Keesmatt, she's not designing the building, the architect is. It was his choice to do away with the design details shown in the three-tower version of the proposal. She has no control over what happens in other countries. The building boom has been going on for quite a while in this city. You can hardly blame a new city planner for what developers have opted to do or not to do when it comes to design over all those many years.