Other than separating the ASI, this isn't really new, just tipping their hands at what they had been doing internally since 2014 (though sometimes obscured by ribbon features).
Along with ability scores, I view alignment and physical appearance, as significant shifts. I agree the shift is part of a process that has been going on for years, even decades. But shifts of all three have become decisive.
The designers probably want to do more, but still are working within the D&D traditions thus constrained by them to some degree by the feedback concerning them.
It surprises me that alignment remains among the monsters of a humanlike lineage. No doubt this was because of traditionalists complaining about a loss of monsters with alignments. On the other hand, the bullywug monsters exemplifying different alignments, shows the designers are experimenting with how to implement alignments in a more sensitive way.
In the Witchlight adventure, there is a section with "roleplaying cards" for each of the unique characters. It combines alignment with the personality section: personality mannerism, ideal, flaw, and bond. This shift suggests that for player characters, alignment is personal and part of the 5e roleplaying tools. This makes sense anyway, and is part of the overall demechanization of alignment. But it is a decisive shift of section, no longer relevant to the race section or the class section. Earlier, the 5e Players Handbook explicitly listed "Alignment" as a trait for each race, while drow and orc emphasized Evil. I am confident, we will never see alignment again as a trait for the race of a lineage.
With regard to reallife sensitivities, there is a clear distinction. To the degree that a concept is nonhuman, there is no problem. But to the degree that the concept resembles a reallife human, problems can happen. For example, for the new races, the fairy has wings and the harengon has a rabbit head. These features are nonhuman and therefore, for the most part, neutral. However, when it comes to the gender, ethnicity, complexion, age, height and weight, and so on, these reallife human descriptions are inherently sensitive. Thus the player has total control over these reallife appearances. All humanlike races can have any humanlike appearance.
The mechanic of size, whether Medium or Small, awkwardly interferes with the choice of height and weight, but is still presumed to be within the choices in a range of reallife human sizes, regardless of the fantastical race.
Because there is a meaningful difference between reallife human features and nonhuman features, I am surprised that a monster of a humanlike lineage still perpetuates an alignment stereotype.
Personally, I feel the current term "Typically" remains problematic while assigning alignment, since it still perpetuates a reallife stereotype if a monster happens to be humanlike.
On the other hand, I like how the bullywug has different alignments for its knight and its royal. Its multiplicity shows the bullywug isnt inherently any particular alignment. Where a Lawful Good knight can easily be obligated to serve an Evil monarch, the alignment has less to do with the bullywug lineage and more to do with an interesting D&D encounter. In this sense, I might prefer a term like "Incidentally" an alignment, rather than "Typically" an alignment. Whatever the phrasing, it should emphasize that the alignment refers to the encounter concept, whether a social encounter or a combat encounter, rather than to the lineage concept.
In sum, I view decisive shifts for abilities, alignment, and personal appearance. But there is still tension between D&D tradition (standardization) and D&D progress (innovation). The reallife ethical goal is a process that remains incomplete and ongoing.
