I think people will vary with respect to the importance they attach to the issue. I’m not a monk, and don’t live by the vinaya, so it has little direct relevance to me. I don’t live near a Bhikkuni sangha. But if I did, I would decide whether or not to help support them based on whether I thought they were doing good in the world, not whether they had been verified as 100% Vinaya Pure by some other authority figures.
I also think the fetishization of the idea of “lineage” in the tradition is a little weird. Over the years, I have read about many monks, both contemporary and ancient, who many people would agree had very weird, defective or lax ideas about the path, the discipline and practice. And yet, they were ordained and went on to ordain others. So somehow the teachings are stronger than they were, and their successful transmission across the generations doesn’t require absolute perfection by each successive teacher/trainer. The idea that each link in the chain of spiritual descendants has some special magic and training capacity that can only be passed down person to person is dubious. I’m sure there are by now so many books about living the holy life that anyone who wants to try to set up a community and try to do it can get on with it pretty well without the constant attentions of an official preceptor. And as they learn from experience and get better at it, they will be able to teach others.
My personal feeling is that there is no way to resolve these issues in any objective manner. Every interpretive principle, and every normative principle based on such interpretative principles, either relies logically on other principles, or must be accepted without justification as part of a tradition. Analayo and Thanissaro could debate for a hundred years, but it wouldn’t stop women who want to find a way of going forth, and people who want to support them in going forth, from doing so.