As with so many things in life this is more cock-up than conspiracy, with a dose of legal input and stupidity thrown in.
As many have already noted, since the Van Commenee days, the strategy has been to raise the bar. They think that over time, tough selection standards will lead to higher standards of performance. The requirement for two A standards should be seen in that context. Applying it to an event that is almost never run and takes a long time to recover from, is where the stupidity comes in. Fair enough to ask sprinters for two As - they can do it in the same afternoon!
The overly complicated selection policy is the product of a legal mindset and a desire to avoid too many appeals.
Regardless of how you feel about Andy Vernon, his non-selection is at odds with our stated aim to raise distance running standards. On the one hand they spend a lot of money on trips for young athletes to Kenya (money saving has NOTHING to do with the selection criteria - there is plenty of money); on the other a man who has two Euro medals and has run the third fastest time by a Brit over 10000 in 16 years, doesn't get selected for a Champs. Any young athlete will, if they have any sense, conclude they have little or no hope of ever representing us in a major champs over 10,000 if this policy continues.