I'm about half way through marking the current assignment and several trends are apparent.
Firstly, the question is about the issue of evolutionary or revolutionary change. Many people are focusing on what they would do, rather than looking at the issues of what sort of change is appropriate for the firm. Many people deal with the evolutionary/revolutionary debate in a somewhat perfunctory manner, and show little depth of understanding of the subtle of the issues. Instead, they follow Strebel's "decision tree" with out paying heed to the supporting text/descriptions i.e. they have applied a common-or-garden understanding to his decision tree, rather than the more nuanced explanation in the rest of the reading.
Secondly, people focus on the strengths and weaknesses of of the content of the firm's strategy, rather than the strengths of weaknesses of the change process (which feeds back into my earlier point).
Thirdly, when people think (and write) about what they would do, they try and fix everything. If you reflect back on Ohmae, what is the central question that needs to be answered–how does this all fit together (Mason & Mitroff?)? Why give a long "shopping list", with little sense of priority or importance?
Finally, there is a clear guide in the question to use Rumelt (1980) in to evaluate the proposed strategy. So far, no one has used Rumelt.