To me, this is proof that verification isn’t about security feature, just social status. It’s been exploited by hackers to mimic famous accounts, including Musk himself https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46097853.amp
A name is not a unique identifier. Full stop. If you expect a specific name to refer to a specific person just because it's public, you're glossing over a lot of details which just plain don't make that work.
To some degree, this is not a problem with the social media network, it's a problem with people not realizing that a name on a social media network doesn't necessarily have to be the first person you think of when you see that name, and some personal responsibility to know who you're contacting is expected. There's things social networks can and should do to make this easier, but ultimately the problem will persist until people change their behavior.
@willsmith is clearly not the Will Smith that slapped Chris Rock at the Oscars. He isn't claiming to be, but he could change his profile photo and all of a sudden the world would think he was the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. The blue checkmark adds some validity to that claim.
Some account handles will match real names. People make assumptions on that. At the current time, no matter of locking down profiles so they don't change will solve the problem of people assuming an account name must match the famous person with the same name, because names are not only not unique, collisions are common enough that famous people share names all the time. People don't do the barest amount of verification of what they are seeing compared to what they assume, so nothing you add that they have to look at to fix that will actually fix it.
Or repurpose the misinformation banners to make it clear that this is a person with the same name not a person with the same position/title. Maybe the long-tail gets messy but that's where implicitly or explicitly linking to external sources is valuable. Or just trust twitter to be that external source (maybe with 3rd party alternatives via "open sources").
By "missing some of the nuance", I meant of the example presented earlier (https://twitter.com/willsmith), which is not someone impersonating Will Smith the actor, is someone somewhat famous in their own right (even if much less so than the actor), and has the name because they were on Twitter first. They go out of their way to state who they are and to disambiguate themselves from the actor Will Smith, but are also verified as Will Smith. Guess what? They got a lot of hate tweets recently from people that didn't bother to actually look whether @willsmith was the actor or not and just blindly assumed so.
Perhaps you missed some of the nuance in that as well?