Yes, the new brace is flat on both ends, but the extension to space it away from the receiver works - it spaces it away from the end of the buffer tube.
My challenge to those who don't "see" it is to actually try it on a range. AR pistols aren't that inaccurate - it's a matter of shooter skill. Plenty say they will reach out to 100m, Ok. The typical hit zone man or game animal is 18" around. That's 18 MOA.
A stock is just an accessory for those who can't shoot it as well as without - same as any other. Can you hit a 18MOA target with your .5 -2 MOA barrel or not? It's just 100 yards. And to fit the profile of what a 10.5" barreled AR does, it's going to be a lot easier under 50 feet - stock or not.
The entire issue is that many are completely convinced a stock is absolutely necessary for precision accuracy, the reality is that a COM hit is all that is needed. Everything else is bragging rights.
If you need to be so good that you hit a hostage takers head at 50m, start practicing and learn how. You'll be lucky they are standing still. Otherwise, the brace is really an aid to help stabilize the gun for those who lack the skill, same as a red dot speeds up targeting - not accuracy - for a 20-something soldier who spends 50 weeks a year doing something else than shoot.
If you believe the militia is the people, we should be able to shoot better than the hired help. We did in the 1770's and had better weapons.
There are some fundamental issues that are being ignored in the rush to accessorize our weapons - and it seems style rules before common sense. If the ATF doesn't like how we style our weapons, fine. Take the at their legal request and deal with it. Adapt and overcome.
Turn the brace around and shoot it well anyway.