The other big flaw of 'let GMs sort it out' is that like... that freaking sucks for players man. Like for real.
A huge huge HUGE draw for many many players is looking over the books and thinking "This looks cool. I want to try this!"
When you put balancing onus onto the GM as POLICY beyond the bare minimum 'trust your GMs to say no to really ridiculous things that clearly never were intended' you do a lot of intensely negative things.
For one, you are priming your GM to do the opposite of what a good GM does, to limit, to quash, to restrict. It violates one of the basic tenants of good GMing in modern RPGs: Being a fan of your players and wanting cool stuff to happen. Ideally, your rules should springboard player imagination, not to be something that is a false start that requires the GM to tell players "No!"
Secondly, its a huge bait and switch killjoy to a player who attached to a cool thing the RPG said to do. Like it isn't a player's fault the RPG book lied to them or said they could do something, a huge appeal of RPG books is perusing them for cool things. That is a massive part of what SR is about, it is why older editions literally framed the books as shopping catologues, because it was fun to look through them and go "Wowe Zowy that is so cool! I am going to use that on my next PC!" By promising a player something and expecting the GM to slap it out of their hands, congrats, you just create a really comically avoidable negative play experience most RPGs these days manage to avoid. How razzed do you think Billy Boardgames, new RPG player, is going to be to make a new PC after their GM tells them they were a naughty boy for doing this cool thing the books tell you to do making a Mystic Adept and tossing the sheet in the bin? Probably not very... Its why pretty much no RPG on the market does this and why no game design course will teach you this is a good idea. Its like... objectively a massive failure?
Finally it basically... surrenders good game design? It isn't a virtue to say "Gms can just balance it themselves so we should make the game extra wacky and let GMs reign it in." Your game... should be good? Like it feels so weird to use this as a counterpoint to an argument but games should be good and well designed.
This quality's only function is to let a player reduce the maximum of an attribute in exchange for more power now. That is ALL it does. Shadowrun is a game where it is not just extremely unlikely, but unheard of to max out all your attributes over the course of a game. It does not take a design genius to realize that this quality, therefore, is an auto-pick at at least one level, and it isn't a Punpun level unexpected outcome for a player to elect to take this quality that, in essence, does nothing, when its effect starts and ends at limiting the upper level of an attribute. Like yeah you can't always anticipate someone will combine a bunch of stuff in an unexpected way to nuke the game, that stuff happens. But we are talking about a single quality being used on its own in the context it is intended to be used in. If it doesn't work THERE its just broken, there isn't a debate to be had on players trying to 'win' the game or GMs limiting content, it just shouldn't have been written.
In the context of SR, this is a failed design on the face of it because as a negative quality it does... nothing, in pretty much any context. It isn't really 'on' the GM that something was printed that was so aggressively out of line. It isn't even like 5e Aged which KINDA gets away with it by forcing it on a bunch of attributes so that being aged really does limit your build severely on most PCs. This quality isn't 'being abused,' it just *IS* broken. That isn't on the GM, someone writing the game should notice this quality breaks good design principles and have fixed it or removed it.
There totally ARE designs where you are trusting your GM to limit content that are not just fine, but good! SR has some! Fame, for example, is a quality banned at many a table just because it is very disruptive to the campaign's dynamic, but it exists because it allows very interesting stories to exist if the GM is cool with it. Fame earns its right to exist despite being something that many GMs won't allow at their table, because it serves a purpose. You don't need to contextualize taking fame as 'abusive' to ban it from your table, it can just not be a good fit. You can just say "nah" for Fame and it is totally clear both why you said it and why it is in the book despite the GM saying "nah."
The same can't be said for Impaired. It doesn't exist to create stories. It just exists to give you karma for giving up access to a future number your never going to reach anyway. It isn't worth any of the effort it takes for the GM or players to think about or conflict over, and therefore shouldn't exist. It purely exists to make the game worse on SOME level (less balanced, GM-player conflict, or a player being disappointed by a bait and switch).
Negative qualities exist to make the game more intersting and make stories better. If they aren't doing that (They are too punishing to the point people don't want to take them and hide in the safe bubble of having a bunch of 'allergies, mild, unobtanium,' or conversely they basically don't impact the story at all) they aren't worth printing. I can't imagine a table or PC made more interesting by impaired, it just exists to be frustrating, so 'why was this printed' is a fair question and 'GM customization of their game' isn't remotely a good answer.