Do you reject the paper's claim (that disparate impact liability makes almost everything presumptively illegal, including in situations where no one has done anything wrong), or do you think that there's no way to address plausibly-deniable intentional discrimination with less collateral damage?

Most of the criticisms of POSIWID in https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo... seem equally applicable to your proposed corollary.