Personally, I rather like that they're not doing big changes or redesigns on the user facing side. KDE is pretty damn good as it is and I don't need a whole bag of new-and-shiny breaking my workflow.
Not sure if it's still the same as it was back in my day, but KDE's "release candidate" nomenclature was always a bit of a misnomer. You'd never see RC1 actually released as final. What it really means is that the alpha "feature refinement" beta "bug fixing" phase is over, and it's the final testing phase for showstoppers. However, the definition of showstopper seemed always to be very wide. Thus, a lot of bugs still get reported and fixed during this phase, and RC really means "beta, but towards the end of the pipeline".
Which is in contrast to the Linux kernel where a RC can be declared ship-ready and simply get renamed.
Admittedly there's a fairly large impact difference between kernel level bugs, and say a bug in Okular...
The nomenclature is actually correct here, and a lot of other software use it, at least from everything I've seen. Release candidate means it's stable and (usually) feature complete but could have bugs and needs testing before they launch it.
This is at least somewhat common. In fact, it's the same way the Linux kernel development cycle works. They have 7 release candidates, released on a weekly basis between the beta period and final release. See: https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html
In the world of proprietary corporate software, I more often see release candidates presented as potentially final; i.e. literal candidates for release. The idea of scheduling multiple RCs in advance doesn't make sense in that context, since each one is intended to be the last (with fingers crossed).
It's kind of splitting hairs, honestly, and I suspect this distinction has more to do with the transparency of open-source projects than anything else. Apple, for example, may indeed have a schedule for multiple macOS RCs right from the start and simply choose not to share that information. They present every "release candidate" as being potentially the final version (and indeed, the final version will be the same build as the final RC), but in practice there's always more than one. Also, Apple is hardly an ideal example to follow, since they've apparently never even heard of semantic version numbering. Major compatibility-breaking changes are often introduced in minor point releases. It's infuriating. But I digress.
It’s still a misuse of the word - if your software needs testing it’s not a candidate you would release unless you’re a multi-billion gaming company or Cisco
I'm a bit curious about why you have been waiting for it "only" for half a decade, since that feature was gone since 5.0, more than a decade now.
All in all there have been no mention of it coming back whatsoever, and for what I understand they removed it because the code behind it was causing lots of trouble with Qt5 and was impossible to mantain. And they've stated they won't be reviving this feature.