i do not see EP's or USASF using the first option because of the restricted division. i realize they are not the same... but your reasoning for the division was that it "It allows teams to develop their Level 5 program and compete without putting them in the Worlds division." that is exactly what the restricted division was designed to do, so offering both would be silly.
not that your suggestion isn't valid - CEA (and many other gyms, it's just easy to use CEA as an example because they're so open with everything) has had plenty of "world's" teams whose main objective of the season was not worlds. because of their crossover policies, most of those kids were on their "real" competitive team (junior, R5, etc) and the "fun," skill building, senior 5 team. but if they were able to get a bid to worlds in the process, why not take it (if $$ isn't an issue)? the fault lies more in the bid awarding process, than anything, IMO. (and we'll see how next season plays out. it may be "fixed.") the teams i see doing this don't want to be restricted. they want their kid with a double to throw it and they want to compete the more complex baskets and standing fulls, etc.
i do think if the industry chose to adopt the DI/DII system, your suggestions are the only way to make it work fairly. if a small gym wants to compete D1, i say go ahead!! but you can't switch between the two divisions at your leisure or when it's convenient for the jacket or ring. i would also like to see "small gym" divisions done away with and have DI/DII across the board. no division splits within those two splits. ( like how cheersport will have four Large Senior 3 groups. no. all DI's together, all DII's together.) however, it would be interesting to see what percentage of smaller gyms opted to go D1 (if it was too big of a percent, would it even be worth having the split?) and how many worlds athletes DII gyms may lose to DI gyms.