No doubt, some feedbacks are controversial but DT has a long history of that. Like Lauda, marlboroza, TMAN or many more. All of them good DT members and beneficial for the community but yes, controversial.
As a correction, Lauda isn't DT and hasn't consistently been DT since March 2020 - ignoring the few "lucky" weeks here and there - prior to leaving the forum 7 months later. She was kicked off DT long before leaving the forum, in case there was any doubt.
Fair point I guess. I was going by the grammar of present tense. If you had used the past tense I wouldn't of said anything.
I'm also sure there are better examples than Lauda. If we really want to elaborate this, maybe marlboroza is a much better example here.
And marlboroza is still DT (DT2).
No need to take my dissertation too seriously or personally for that matter, it's been a while that I've read others claiming Lauda is a good DT member over the years - or simply a DT member - whereas neither is currently true, so thought I'd put my correction in there at some point.
Yes, I didn't specify that, maybe I should have worded it a bit better and elaborating it a bit more but since I've just written down some names quickly, I thought it's not necessary. I didn't want to write an extended DT history lesson. 
I've removed Lauda at some point from my trust list as well, so I'm definitely not claiming here that Lauda still is a good DT member. But I would say despite Lauda's bad ending in DT, Lauda has been a good DT member for a long time by tagging a huge number of abusers over the years.
And there's always a risk that accounts will lose all of their red paint when a formerly famous DT members gets removed indefinitely.
In summary, Lauda isn't a good example of controversial DT members, but more so an example of how you can go from one of the most trusted DT members (+30) to least trusted (-10) within a year, which is an impressive turnaround. Lauda remains the greatest example of how not to act when you are on DT if you want your feedback to remain trusted by default.
For most of the time, Lauda was a DT member until (as I remember correctly), Lauda was distrusted heavily in June 2019. DefaultTrust (Marketplace Trust) existed since 2013, with Lauda first time on DT probably around 2014 / 2015. Therefore, I've added Lauda to my list. Maybe not a perfect example considering how it ended but until 2019 it's a good example.
I agree with you that up until 2019 Lauda was probably the best example of a controversial DT member, as one of the most controversial. Ironically it would be her downfall in the end. Can't even remember what the mass distrusting of Lauda was back in 2019, but it wasn't until 2020 that she became excluded from DT for reference sake. She went from 30+ DT strength down to 0-10 in 2019 roughly, then reached -10 by 2020. I think it was around the time trust flags were introduced and she went a bit rogue with it, with Timelord highlighting her numerous incorrect uses of them (many flag references).
But Lauda's case is very unique in my opinion, where many established members were involved (big clusterfuck) and the distrust between them got too big at some point (and also the issue, where Lauda got distrusted massively, like you've pointed out).
Instead for JollyGood and Royse777 here I believe, a solution is much easier. There's not such a clusterfuck as for Lauda's cases, not even close.
Even in case of OP's negative trust won't be removed, a single negative feedback (or two, to be accurate, there's one from efialtis as well) won't matter much long-term. More positive feedbacks will be added on top and that's it.
I'm otherwise not intending to compare Lauda and JG here, as they are considerably different. JG has removed or amended feedback after criticism, which is something Lauda would never do. Just thought I'd provide some context regarding Lauda since you bought her up as a "good DT member", which couldn't be further from the truth, at least based on the raw data available regarding DT inclusion/exclusion.
That's true, I wouldn't compare JollyGood to Lauda as well, the only thing I wanted to point out is: DT has always been controversial and as we've seen from other cases, where JollyGood is involved, JollyGood also listens to community feedback to solve issues, which is a very important point in my opinion. From what I've seen it's not community feedback that JG listens to, probably as it's not "the community" that maintains his DT status. It's only been those who have included him in their trust list (namely his DT1 sponsers) that he listens to. Otherwise there's basically no reason to listen or consider anything anyone else is saying, as it won't directly effect his DT status. That's my interpretation anyway.
Maybe JollyGood still knows but as far as I can remember it's a case from 2023.
Because most of the time, when someone complains about JollyGood's feedback it's like that: a shitposter has shitposted somewhere and JollyGood has issued a negative (instead of a neutral) trust. And I don't like it at all, when shitposters are playing the victim card.
I've had that as well that some shitposters complained via PM to me to remove my (often just neutral trust) and there's a clear pattern where shitposters just play the victim card. They don't want to improve and I've read a lot of theses cases being similar for JollyGood, where these shitposters don't show any commitment to improve. Yes, JollyGood has put some negative trusts on these accounts, where negative trust is not appropriate and a neutral trust should be chosen instead. But still, many shitposters acted like they are completely innocent. Take this case for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1114408
This shitposter complained, lied to DT and acted like he's completely innocent...
That's why I can understand JollyGood in many cases (not related to JollyGood vs. Royse777 case of course).