I suppose if the only pastoral tool one has is a rigoristic legalism, then, every "irregular" situation is going to suspiciously look like a disciplinary canonical nail.

In reading the dubia, indeed, the conclusions of Burke's arguments were not merely contained in his premises but in his conceptual definitions. Even stipulating to 1) virtually exceptionless norms that bind, which 2) no conscience can legitimate, and to 3) objective situations of grave habitual sin,  which 4) no intentions or circumstances can transform into a subjectively good or defensible choice, it doesn't follow that 5) new guidelines have been established that allow communion to be given to Catholics in irregular situations, whether divorced-remarried, contracepting, LGBTQ or others.

The dubia questions aren't apposite to Amoris, which changed  no moral doctrines, church disciplines or canons. Amoris did compellingly reaffirm that the pastoral has primacy over the legal, but that's as old as a Jewish Carpenter!