I think it's twofold.
First, what other jurors say or do is part of the deliberations. It's part of what jurors are precluded from speaking about under section 649, even with the people doing the debriefing, so I think that's the policy implication there: changing the ban on the discussion of deliberations can help alleviate the stress associated with problematic jurors.
The other goes back to the jury selection process and finding out a little more about jurors. Mostly what we currently know is just what they look like and their names. It could be more along the line of the federal model in the United States, which doesn't involve extensive questioning. It's typically 15 minutes of questioning done by a judge. A brief description of the case is given, and then it's anything about your background or life experiences that you think could impact you if you were a juror in this case. It's not an open season, getting rid of everyone who has some sensitivities; it's just finding out if there are personal life experiences that would make you not the right juror for this case, but perhaps a fine juror for another case. That would be a recommendation.