Well, that's a fairly loaded question but honestly despite that, it's fair.
I'm also not at liberty to discuss privileged information, like discussions behind the scenes with developers. However, I'll tell you what I feel I can say.
The advantage in strength was, near as I can guess, intended to be primarily represented in the damage code. DVs being some value derived from strength goes way back. Guns have had static DVs since the beginning, and so we've had two paradigms for DVs since the beginning (Static and STR-derived).
What was new this time around was the design goal to put melee weapons on static DVs rather than being STR-derived. I can't say why this decision was made: I wasn't privy to it and even if I did know, it'd be bound by NDA. So, by extension what is new is some weapons having static DVs and some being "unarmed-like" getting derived DVs. Why, for example, are bone lacing attacks one and not the other? (see errata flipping that back and forth). It was eventually agreed that the best thing to do is have all melee attacks work the same way rather than maintaining an arbitrary "kind" distinction. Obviously, the Str-derived paradigm just got abandoned entirely.
In of itself, that's a fine decision to unify/streamline everything but it has 2nd order effects. Like, "Ok, well that was the main thing Strength did to help combat. So what's the point in STR, now that there's even less role for it?" It's something that's not lost on the errata team, and proactive fixes to address that had already been proposed. For whatever reason, they weren't entirely approved for the 2nd corrected printing of the CRB, but if you're a close reader you might be able to suss out how we didn't QUITE get down to 1 unified DV mechanic across all melee attacks and how some cases now mention adding STR to AR yet there's no rule actually saying to do that.
I'm crossing my fingers that we'll yet see some additional errata issued in the 2nd doc that for whatever reason didn't make it into the 2nd corrected CRB printing. Barring that, I think it's fair to assume that at least the intent is to add STR to AR for melee attacks. If you're not sold on edge being a meaningful enough advantage, that likely won't satisfy you. But otoh, if you're not sold on edge, honestly you're probably never going to be satisfied with this edition anyway as it's so central to the entire rules engine.