Trajectory control when it works has the benefit of better being able to stay within the waiver radius at site. When it fails, a failure effect may be a gross violation of the waiver radius, much more so than your average garden variety passive rocket.
How would users and developers of such solutions propose to prevent this failure mode?
Any non-guided rocket can veer off and exceed the waiver radius. How do you propose to prevent that failure mode for ballistic rockets?
How do you propose to prevent that failure mode for clustered rockets that can veer off and exceed the waiver radius if a side motor does not ignite?
As for system failure, can be said for any rocket using electronics for a safe flight. e.g. altimeter ejection instead of motor ejection. How do you propose to prevent that failure mode for rockets using electronic ejection?
How do you propose to prevent that failure mode for reloads, if the flier improperly assembles them (i.e. forgets the ejection charges, or an O-ring error?)
So, you're inventing a special straw horse that ignores how this is handled for other rockets.
There is a balance between strangling innovation, creativity, and new technology, and whether a specific person with a specific rocket has designed, built, and prepped it so it will fly safely..... or not. Regardless of the design or special features.
In the end, no RSO really knows if the rocket that is about to launch has been prepared or designed properly or not. I mean, I know of no launched with "prep monitors" who baby-sit every rocket being prepared, to make sure if everything is right, or not. And some kinds of rockets, I would not trust a flight sim worth a darn to be accurate.
Why would you suddenly apply a blanket rule to guided rockets that might have something go wrong, that is not applied to everything else?
What is tricky is that if a person is not very good at this, then they could come up with a pretty dangerous model. But when I say "this", i'm not specifically talking about guided rockets. I mean clustering, and reloads, and staging, and altimeter electronics, and staging electronics, and air-start electronics, or actual rocket designs such as flying say full sized outhouses and snowmobiles (to mention a couple of disasters by people who usually know how to fly safely). It's not necessarily the KIND of technology or rocket, but whether the builder/flier seems competent to pull it off, or not.
And no I'm not suggesting a "certification" for guidance, unless you are all prepared to have certification for all the other categories I listed above, no grandfathering, then go and certify if you want to fly a cluster, or a stage, air-start, or use altimeter ejection, or use a reload, or fly your own non-kit design, and so on.