There is no fake governance structure attempting to recover what they have lost unless there is a reason to believe that J. Lopp and the other authors of the BIP are in fact satoshi, wanting to regain access to bitcoin whose keys they lost.
There could be other types of Conflicts of Interest involved, even without an "explicit" governance structure like Ethereum's. For example, those who support the BIP could be heavily invested in an entity which is in great danger to get into trouble if Bitcoin's price crashed harder than in other recent bear markets. Smaller ETF/ETP providers, Strategy etc.
My impression is that they want to try to completely remove the "Satoshi Coins sellout scenario", declaring his coins lost forever. And if there are entities which benefit from the removal of this volatility risk, then they would be probably in favour of that change and that would result in COIs.
As a compromise I could maybe accept freezing of P2PKH addresses as those were a flaw in the original design of the system, but not more than that. Whoever still has such an address is using Bitcoin wrong.
I think you mean P2PK, not P2PKH. What I would agree is to not freeze those addresses (because in fact that's where Satoshi's coins reside), but to declare new P2PK scripts invalid, so new ones aren't created anymore.
P2TR is another problem. I wonder if Taproot could be changed in a way to remove the exposure of the public key, e.g. removing the key path?