Perhaps you've shone a light on a need for expansion. Decisions and Amendments do not always encompass the spectrum necessary, so often the Curia can be seen making relatively menial decisions an ordeal. The solution might be to figure out how we can add some more procedures for specific situations.
One such situation might be a Curial ruling on Constitution interpretation. As it stands we have the avenue to amend the document with a 66% majority, but if it fails then the existing phrase may still be just as ambiguous. The solution to this may then be a separate procedure for interpretation of current phrasing where necessary. Something like folks offer a few interpretations, resolve differences in the similar ones, and then get support for those interpretations. Then we'd have a vote interpretation vs. interpretation and a plurality would decide which way it should be interpreted until otherwise amended, or until another interpretation overrides it. That could remove the problem of needing explicit change to remove ambiguity, and being left with it if we can't achieve that.
There's possibly others. Anything where we can make a procedure more viable and expedite it would be a nice thing to pursue. Whether that's basing some things on plurality, foregoing the requirement of a 3-day wait on addendum-based proposals, etc, it'd probably do some good for the Curia's efficiency rating.
(Throwing it out there in here for now since I don't have any concrete proposals in mind)