To decide whether we should have a Secondary Ability and/or a Flavor Ability, I think we need to remember a few fundamentals of Create-A-Pokemon:
We try to build a cohesive pokemon, and that "cohesion" is provided by the chosen Concept. Although our pokemon is built in steps, EVERY step is expected to enhance or help us achieve the Concept. Sometimes, after the fact, we might realize we made a choice that turned out to not help the concept or even contradict it completely. But we NEVER make an intentional anti-Concept choice.
The Secondary Ability on all CAP pokemon is expected to be something that helps achieve the Concept, albeit with lesser or more niche competitive capability than the Primary Ability. If we choose a Secondary Ability that is competitively better than the Primary Ability, then it ISN'T a Secondary Ability at all. Also, if we intentionally choose a Secondary Ability that is so bad that it will never be used competitively, then it ISN'T a Secondary Ability because it isn't being chosen to achieve our competitive Concept.
The Flavor Ability/NCA on all CAP pokemon is expected to be something that is almost never used competitively. Typically, the reason the Flavor Ability isn't used competitively, is because it doesn't have any substantial impact in battle. But, in this case, if the fact that a Flavor Ability doesn't have any meaningful battle impact actually makes it useful competitively (because it is in some ways better than the negatives of our Primary Ability), then it ISN'T a Flavor Ability/NCA.
Our Concept is NOT "Let's make a Color Change mon". Color Change was the first step and first choice we have made in building around a concept centered on defective abilities. And although the Concept does mention "Ability" in the singular, not the plural -- I think we are free to elect to have multiple abilities, if we want. That's kinda the whole reason the TL made this thread.
But whatever abilities we choose, they need to align with the Concept, which means they need to be "defective". If we choose a Secondary Ability that is "not defective", then it is anti-Concept. If we choose a Secondary Ability that is "less defective (ie. better) than Color Change", then it isn't a Secondary Ability.
Can we choose a Secondary Ability that is defective, but useful, without muddying the water too much for Color Change? I don't know. I tend to think any other defective-but-potentially-useful abilities out there will require many other steps to align with it. And trying to juggle that with the needs of Color Change is an awfully tall order. Maybe an ability like Mimicry could fit in, because it is in the same space of Type-changing and all that. But let's be honest, are there really enough abilities out there that fit that bill, to even make a real Secondary Ability poll?
I'm fine with having a discussion about viable Secondary Abilities, and I'm fine with having the discussion later in the process, if that's what people want -- but if we know the result will be a "poll" of, at most, one or two real choices, then why even take the time for it? If it's a good discussion and we decide there isn't enough meat on the bone to proceed to a poll, that's fine too. Because good discussions are good. But discussing and choosing (ie. polling) when there really is no choice, that's bad.
I think it will all depend on how well we are able to make a pokemon that really WANTS to run Color Change. If we don't achieve that, then Secondary and Flavor abilities aren't gonna happen. Well... perhaps I should say they won't happen IF we are being true to CAP principles.