One (possibly strained) reading of the PEP is that the whole document is only about conflict resolution.
Here’s my use case for squatting: I’m implementing a new library. I want to eventually release it (under the same name as its importable module). So I squat the name as a signal to the community that I’m planning to use it, knowing that if anyone disputes the name, they’ll automatically get it and I’ll need to rename my project. And that’s fine; there’s a balance between “The namespace shouldn’t be polluted by unfinished projects” and “it’s useful to have a project name before implementing it”.
Today, in practice, the balance is at “if someone wants the name enough to contact the moderators, they’re free to have it.”
I understand this places unnecessary work on the PyPI moderators, and the ones doing the work, they should have most say in the rules. But still, I’d be sad to lose a way to “weakly signal the intent to use a name”. In basically any project, there’s a period where the name is known, but there’s no usable code to release. In an open-source project, that name is even publicly known (and itself vulnerable to squatting by trolls).
Perhaps we need a better workflow for legitimate problems people now solve by squatting. Detecting useless packages could soon become an arms race.