To me the document read as we're going to discuss the idea of splitting the franchise, whilst giving lots of good reasons why it should not be split
That's the way that I read it.
Some people on here need to understand the way that Government (or any large organisation) works.
You come up with feasibility studies/ reports/ consultation documents/ proposals that suggest things to see if they could be done better. Often, you know that you don't want these things to happen, but you have to show that you've at least considered them.
So, you might intend to keep one GWR, but you have to placate angry people in Devon/ Cornwall who feel ignored by a huge franchise that seems to be too focussed on the Thames Valley/ Bristol axis. You have a politician who wants to be seen to respond to the "valid concerns" of their local voters. Some of that may be for A Local Franchise For Local People, some of it may be wanting to give local councillors some involvement (which they feel they don't have in a huge-franchise dominated by Paddington services), some of it may be people demanding all GWR announcements are bi-lingual (English and Cornish).
In the grand scheme of a ten year franchise, it doesn't cost a lot of money to have someone knock up a report that gives lip service to the demands for "local accountability" or "better involvement for West Country stakeholders". You examine the ideas, you dismiss the ideas, the politician can go away to explain that everything was investigated and considered, but the status quo is best. That's the way that Civil Servants operate, and their private sector equivalents.