Adding another profile ONLY for a dedicated home console which will sell 10m at the most (probably not even that much) is what I'm saying makes no sense. You're asking developers to do additional work for something barely anyone will use, so most will just opt not to do it. Which would make the entire thing pointless.
A home only Switch makes sense as a cheaper alternative (especially if it doesn't have a game card slot as reported), not a beefier one.
To each his own I guess: to me it's the home Switch with no improvements that makes no sense, especially considering making it more powerful would have a near zero impact on manufacturing costs.
But let's go back to the software side.
Right now there's a lot of software, especially first party, that renders at dynamic resolution. This means developers are already dealing with multiple performance levels. Now, I'm not a professional game developer but I don't think it's too unreasonable to guess that a properly written code will relatively easily deal with the decreased load of the (alleged) higher clocked Mariko GPU.
Third parties, as I said before, are mostly used to a wide range of graphic options thanks to PC development, so it should be easy for them too.
But most of all: Switch is a healthy platform. So I expect, given my assumptions are true, lots of developers (and Nintendo itself) should be more than willing to leverage on the extra power of the X1+ in a home console configuration.
And please don't forget Switch was likely built with scalability in mind. If not now, you can be 99.9% sure more performance profiles are going to be implemented as soon as a second generation system comes into play. I believe you're severely overestimating the efforts required to accommodate all of this.
I mean, we've already seen hacked Switch running games at improved performance/graphics just by virtue of forcing higher clocks or even editing a configuration file!
