I asked about this at NCTM and got the response below. Bill, please correct me if I paraphrase incorrectly:
The progressions are still under work. The article by Wu is essentially the first draft of the progression document. There is a geometry blueprint up on IllustrativeMathematics (https://www.illustrativemathematics.org/blueprints/G).
I responded, “So did you end up going with the Wu approach or did you couch it as Harel recommends?”
Bill said that essentially the blueprint goes with a transformation first approach as opposed to a Euclidean approach.
My opinions: I find Harel’s argument very convincing. That said, I am glad that Bill is making this decision. I much prefer a thoughtful decision I disagree with from him, that includes a solid explanation and a lot of coherence, over a decision from publishers with less coherence.