It's not even about what Waid would personally do. I'd be happy to read pure, unadulterated Waid on Superman. But in a book aimed at retelling Superman's life which could be used as a "bible" for future writers I don't think that he would throw a tamper tantrum if he wasn't completely, 100% free. He's a professional and has worked as an editor for most of his life for Pete's sake. He knows how this works. He knows that there would always be some kind of compromise.
I mean, no matter what they do with the Kents, or the Legion or whatever - someone will not be 100% happy with it. At one point, just go with one direction - the one which they consider the best choice for most people and for the character - even if it means leaving someone unsatisfied.
I mean... It's not that trying to make everyone happy is always he best direction. What was the point of bringing the Kents back in Doomsday Clock if they won't do anything relevant in the stories? And isn't it a bit hilarious that the one who revived the Kents is the SAME writer who killed Pa Kent some years ago? I find this creative choices as confusing as editorial interference - it's as if the writers themselves don't know what to do.
Educational town, Rolemodel city and Moralofthestory land are the places where good comics go to die.
DC writers and editors looked up and shouted "Save us!"
And Alan Moore looked down and whispered "No."
I'm kinda surprised Snyder didn't want Superman to watch Lois and Bruce conceive their love child. All the while singing the "Na na na na na na Batman!" theme song - Robotman, 03/06/2021