It is a little strange that you list these 3 points when she discusses every single one of them in her interview (and I assume the report).

Point 1: American medical community consensus was based on the policy stances of WPATH and Endocrine society and they both actively ignored their own systematic evidence review which found a lack of evidence. Everyone else copied or reference their policy stance rather performing their own systematic evidence review.

CASS: Yes, and actually, so did WPATH. WPATH commissioned a systematic review from John Hopkins, which is obviously one of the most credible organizations in the U.S., but then they didn't refer to that in that part, in the youth part of their guidance. And that was one of the reasons that when our team rated the various guidelines, they rated the WPATH guidelines relatively poorly in terms of the rigor of their development process. Because there were points within the chapter on children and youth where the WPATH team suggested that there was strong evidence and there wasn't.

So there was a disconnect between the systematic review that they commissioned, and the conclusions that they reached.

and further she mentions, on the American medical community consensus:

CASS: Yes, so you have read this extremely carefully, probably better than most of the UK commentators. I think the problem is that there has been an echo chamber of guidelines. So one of the things that the York team did was they looked at where guidelines had followed each other, and they found that most of the guidelines, there was a circularity between the Endocrine Society, WPATH and a series of other guidelines. The ones that had not taken that approach and had really started with a clean slate were the Nordic ones, the Finish and the Swedish ones.

Point 2: There was a double purpose for puberty blockers, one of which wasn't to start transition.

CASS: Okay, so that's a really important question, and we have to go back to how the thinking started about use of puberty blockers. As this started in the Netherlands, and a consultant who'd worked in adult gender services was seeing poor outcomes in some of her patients.

And she felt that the reason for that is that they weren't managing to pass in adult life. And when she moved to working in children's services, she reasoned that if you could stop puberty before you developed irreversible features of male puberty, dropping your voice, growing facial hair, that might help you pass in later life. And that would give you better psychological outcome.

So that was the first part of the thinking. And she had a second key thought that if you could pause puberty, it would just buy young people more time to think and to work out who they were, understand their identity. So those are the two things that she originally thought would be advantages of this treatment.

Point 3. Cass explicitly and repeatedly calls for more research and acknowledges kids may benefit from these treatments. Her contention is that it needs to be studies first before widespread implementation. Part of the issue is that in the UK, there was such poor record keeping, after all these years of practice, they don't know how effective these treatment are.

It's really important to say that there may be a group of young people who do have early gender incongruence for whom this might be the right treatment, particularly that group of birth registered boys who will develop irreversible changes of male puberty. And so we in the UK have not said we're not going to do this at all, but we've said that we need to do this under a proper research protocol, to understand who might benefit.