I’m not going to mince words here, I think this sort of thing is a horrible idea. Other than the “what does this card do again?” that will be everywhere in the tournament, it’s not highly playtested design and I can assure you that the metagame will be far less diverse than what it is at the moment. What you’d do is make a new meta that’s different, and with vastly different cards to the one we have now (and therefore extremely unfriendly for players) and almost certainly worse than the one we have now. Rules errata has never been a good thing in other card games and there’s no reason that’d be different for Netrunner.
What’s wrong with Criminal or Anarch? They’re not at all too strong and massively nerfing them isn’t going to help them. Shaper is left (essentially) untouched whilst Criminal and Anarch are completely devastated (those Anarch programs are low inf so Criminal can splash them, cards aren’t meant to not be splashed). Criminal and Noise are next to unplayable (neither are exactly too good now) and Kate loses her link? These changes aren’t well thought out and would only widen the current fissure in power level (any decks that aren’t Kate/RP/ETF are highly discouraged, as opposed to just being a bit worse). Anyway, that’s not even my biggest problem with these sorts of rebalancings:
Often, these sorts of things come from some dislike of the current metagame and some sort of view that it’s a bad thing that one deck is stronger than the others and people seem to think that the solution to this ‘problem’ is to nerf everything and make it bad. One deck will always be stronger than the others. Period. There is always a best deck for any given metagame. No amount of nerfing or rebalancing is going to change that, and the solution is not to nerf one deck into the ground so that another can rise in its place of being the ‘best deck’ (that’s unexciting and makes for lots of small, uninteresting metas), the solution is to make other strategies viable and thereby create a large, interesting meta.
You’re never going to get a perfect meta, and attempting to ‘fix’ it by nerfing the best strategies at the time is not going to make the other decks good. The other decks are only subpar in the context of the current state of affairs, but don’t take my word for it! An example of the (directly) post-Valley meta is probably a good example, and though NEH had become significantly worse, after The Valley, RP had as much tournament presence as pre-Valley NEH, and you can find examples like this all over Netrunner’s past. People will always find the best deck and there will be discussion like this one about how to make Core 3.0 to fix the ‘flawed metagame’. The king is dead, long live the king?
As a last note on the danger of these sorts of things, a lot of these changes seem to be a personal thing and not very grounded in tournament results, such as the Aesops-to-3-inf change or Parasite to 3 cost or the Anarch program inf increase/general Criminal nerfs. Noise/Reg Ass Anarchs and Criminals are not putting up good tournament results and cards like Scorched Earth are not a bad thing! The danger of having kneejerk errata to each deck you find hard to deal with is hopefully apparent, and even if a deck is winning or particularly dominant, having cards that can naturally flourish against it is better than stopping it from working altogether (as a new deck you find hard to deal with will rise and take its place).
I hope I’ve convinced you even a little bit that this is a bad idea. Constant nerfs/buffs to over/underused cards does not change the inherent nature of a card game metagame, and will make matters significantly worse. I hope that if a second Core is ever made, FFG spends time making new cards instead of balance errata.