I'm no Jimbo of any sort, but let's not kid ourselves about there being consensus on WP:ATT. I had several objections to it, many of which were answered very poorly. (I'm still scratching my head over people saying that false information will not in practice be attributable even in the face of examples where it was.)
And it definitely seemed as if the policy was rammed through. There were two phases. During the first phase, there was discussion about fixing inconsistencies between policy and practice. This got nowhere; there's too much resistance to any and all change. There was a second phase where the goal was to combine the policies without fixing anything, and attempts to get fixes made were answered with "we're just trying to combine the existing material". I'm sure a lot of people forgot about WP:ATT after it became clear the first phase was dying, and never even realized anyone started up a second phase.
I'm also not convinced that it means anything that WP:ATT was accepted as policy so soon. It takes a certain level of Wikipedia-bureaucracy sophistication to even realize that WP:ATT is not a done deal and rejecting it is not just spitting against the wind. Most Wikipedia editors would accept it as a policy merely because it looks like a policy and is presented as one; they'd *never* think "hey, they need a consensus and if enough people like me don't think it counts, then it won't count". And most Wikipedia editors probably wouldn't be in situations where the difference between WP:ATT and the previous policy matters, anyway.