Don't kid yourselves folks, there were substantive changes that came out of the US House speaker "fight."

This came across my feed before the final votes, so I can't vouch for it.  But enough of it was leaked that I suspect its real, and any attempt to not follow through by McCarthy is likely to lead to an endless set of motions to vacate the chair, which is a privileged motion and stops all other activity in the chamber until disposed of.

McCarthy really didn't want that threshold to be one Representative, but absent agreement he was not going to be Speaker and it was quite-clear as the days wore on that those who were opposed were not going to bend no matter how much he yelled or threatened them.  He had no choice but to consent.

That request is not radical; it in fact is how The House has run for most of the last hundred years.

It exists for the specific purpose of putting a stop to the Speaker abusing his or her position in that if you run crap like refusing to allow floor amendments the Representative(s) that you anger can tie the chamber up in knots until you cut it out.

The Speaker, in short, is not King yet that is exactly how it has been treated since the 2016 elections.  Pelosi turned that into an art form; exactly zero non pre-screened amendments were allowed to be offered on the floor during her tenure.  She's not alone; Ryan did the same sort of thing and the reason the "one vote motion" rule was killed when Pelosi got the gavel was that members of the House repeatedly attempted to eject him from the chair for doing it.

Restoring that capacity is absolutely a good thing.  The House is a body of 435 members and in order to represent the people members must be able to proffer both legislation and amendments.  If you cannot do so without the prior approval of one person then there is no representation of the people at all; we have what amounts to a monarchy in the US House.  Legislation can be forced onto the floor for vote out of committee by a discharge petition but if you can't offer amendments then half the process is absolutely held hostage to the whim of one individual.  This should have never been allowed in the first place and it was the big sticking point with McCarthy.

He didn't give this up willingly so we shall see whether he actually conceded to the point of view or whether he "conceded" only until he could find a weapon with which to politically kill his opponents.

The other changes are just as real but secondary.  I find nothing objectionable in any of them but as I noted I would have insisted on more: Legislation barring Executive-declared emergencies of any sort beyond 72 hours past when the House and Senate can convene (whether they actually do) and a bar via rules change on remote appearance and proxies; if you're a member you must be there to either vote or count in a quorum.

The former requires legislation as the House cannot issue an "operating rule" against anything beyond its own chamber.  However, the former is once again nothing special and in fact how The House has conducted business since the first days of our Republic.  It is notably missing unless I've overlooked it buried in there somewhere via an obscure mechanism (e.g. a reference I didn't run down correctly.)

I'll add two more to the list I've mentioned before, both of which can be done by House Rule and the "72 hour rule" goes a tiny step toward one: One business day must pass after a bill comes to the floor before you can vote for each one hundred pages of legislation, consecutive with all others docketed at the time of introduction (to prevent gaming that by introducing 10 4,000 page bills at once) and Omnibus bills are absolutely banned; the budget must go through regular order in each and every case.

The former's purpose is obvious (no more "vote first, see what's in it later" games) and the second puts a hard stop on The House diddling around and forces them to actually do their work on the budget and pass the bills required by September 30th of each year or the government is called to full stop, including all mandatory spending.  Yes, that includes Social Security, Medicare and the light bill for the Capitol building and White House.  Failure to act as required would lead to the risk of an immediate revolt by the people and that means they'll do their job rather than screw around.  The House has one job above all others and that is to pass the budget because per the Constitution they have the sole power of the purse in that all spending must originate in the House which means all tax and spending authority rests there -- and only there.  We've allowed this absolute Constitutional requirement to be gamed for far too long and we must put it back.

Nonetheless -- this is in fact progress.

Now let's see how much of it is real.

One of the problems is that functionally none of it, at present, is real.  Literally zero.  This is the same issue that arose with Obamacare; the GOP voted up repeal time after time, knowing that The Senate would not concur and if it somehow did the President (who's name it bore) would obviously veto.  As soon as that was no longer true, in 2017, the votes instantly stopped.  This is absolute proof that exactly zero of the persons in that chamber prior to 2020 ever intended to repeal Obamacare; they lied from the first day about their intentions.

May I remind you that McCarthy was first elected to Congress in 2006 and held a leadership position in the Republican Party caucus since 2009 -- that is, for the entire period of Obama's Presidency forward.