This is one reason I was suggesting that the Standing Orders might be amended to state that all business would be carried over from one session to another, so if you had a routine prorogation at a set date, the normal understanding would be that all matters would be reinstated. The government has the advantage of a prorogation gap, as it were, to let matters settle, come back with a throne speech, re-present its position, and have a confidence motion, but then carry on with the business that was largely on the agenda before, with some new items.
If it wished to reset the parliamentary agenda, then there would be provision for the routine consideration, at the beginning of the new session, of whether those matters would be fully reinstated or whether we would pick and choose from those. But I think the effect of a regular prorogation, with the assumption that all business will carry over unless the House decides otherwise, creates a disincentive for tactical prorogation and still allows the business of Parliament to be continued and reset if the majority of the House feels it should be reset.