The most obvious reason, logically speaking, to opt out of the Geneva Seal is the requirement that the movements be constructed in Geneva! Will this new PP seal have the same requirement? Or is there a long term strategy to move from Geneva, for which we are seeing one of the earliest moves?
Another concern with PP's motives relates to the fact that they are the largest customer for the Geneva Seal. So, if they wanted to change the criteria, I would think they'd have tremendous leverage. Had they been refused some significant modification to the standards? Not that I've heard, so I'm assuming there is something besides the physical qualifications of granting the seal at stake here.
PP should be careful if they sell their in-house seal as a program of ever-improviing technical excellence. Would that mean, after a few years and several technical changes, that an earlier model PP seal is inferior to a later model? What if an "improvement" is also cheaper to manufacture or easier to service? Would there be suspicions of marketing trickery?
I recall when several manufacturers boycotted the COSC organization for decades, only to return once the fact had sunk in that an "independent" test has greater acceptance than in-house standards, even if they are the same or better. They only really serve as a starting point for those that wish to achieve more...which brings be back to the first point as being the most logical, or am I being too suspicious?