yeah, when i first flipped through it, that's kind of what i thought too.
the initial headlines were something like "supreme court abolishes judicial review", and the oiprd certainly seems to think that vavilov is giving them greater deference, but my initial reaction was that the lack of a clear standard, and the shifting of correctness to reasonableness (essentially, a change in language), may actually open up the court's "interference".
to be clear: i think we need less of these review panels and more formal legal processes. the purpose was to minimize the weight on the court system, and i get it, but these bodies functionally operate without proper oversight (the last thing you want is an "independent review body", because that means there's no accountability!), and many of them should be abolished in favour of bringing back the centrality of the formal court system.
but, if people think that the assumption of reasonableness means less certiorari, i think they're going to be disappointed.