I find that there are good arguments on both sides. I'm not avoiding the question, but I wouldn't say that there's one really good and one really bad option in country-agnostic or not. I would tend to very cautiously lean on being against the country-agnostic approach, but barely, if only for what we were discussing in one of the previous questions, which is the issue of workload.
The reality is that the community as a whole is overstretched. It's hollowed out. Threats are proliferating. We all know that. Would it simplify or streamline it a bit by having a list of countries that pose a threat at this level? I think the answer might be yes to that. That might be a good argument. Building that list would obviously be controversial. There would be disagreements, but I still think it could be doable.
Government does complicated things all the time, and establishing a list of countries that pose a foreign interference threat is something that I think we should be able to do and adopt, even if it means changing it every six months or every year as situations change.