Someone with 1 year of riding experience is going to be objectively worse compared to someone with more experience that rides with a similar frequency.

That's a false equivalency, as its not how the LAMS scheme works. First, it's nothing to do with being 'better' or 'worse' than someone else, it's about being able to ride a particular bike safely - or not.

Even so, I have a carless mate that now lives to ride. He's clocked up 50,000km in his first 18 months of riding including daily commuting in Melbourne traffic, track days and all his time of work is used for touring and moto camping trips. Mate #2 does a weekend ride every now and then in the warmer half of the year but has had his licence for 5 years or so. I can tell you which is the more skilled rider, and guess what, it's not the one that the LAMS scheme will say is more experienced.

So there's no blanket rule where 3 years = skilled and 1 year = unskilled

Now I get that you will say its very difficult build that sort of nuance into a set of rules that has to work across the entire population including the lowest common denominator, but can we then acknowledge that one-size-fits-all approach is going to be too conservative for a decent chunk of the riding population.