I think it is just stubborness to call Beravor broken and not Unexpected Courage, especially without providing single argument. I did not expect something like that from someone as intelligent. You can laugh about my traffic example but it is at least an argument, just stating things as facts is not discussion. How was Beravor broken if not for Unexpected Courage (being able to land on her from every player in multiple copies)?
The Beravor/UC combo was broken. Both card are fine on their own, I hope we agree about that.
The main difference between Beravor and UC is that you can use Beravor's ability right from the statt, while you cannot rely on using UC. I think we also agree that UC is no way broken if you use only one copy of it. I think we disgaree about the rest. And for that we don't need an errata, but only a place to store the copies of UC that you won't use anymore. Nobody forbids you to that. You don't need the designers to tell you to do that.
The need of errata is something that has been discussed hee long ago, and a arge majority of players opted for keeping the errata to an absolute minimum, to do an errata only if a card was breaking the game mechanics. UC is probably not the best card design, but it doesn't break the game. All it does is to give one of your heroes one additional action. Compare UC to Erebor Hammersmith - this guy costs 2 resources and gives you an additional action, fuels the power of many dwarf characters, adds 3 HP in case you have to deal some damage, brings an attachment back to your hand and he receives a bonus from Dain. And there are even two copies of him in the core set!