If we conceive of carrier classes as mostly "record-like but..." Then I think what we tell people to do won't have changed. It's really just that there's a new "wrong" thing that can be done that will be tempting to do.
The semantic description is that a carrier class / component class / data class (shed to be painted later) has a complete, canonical, nominal description of its state. IOW, that the carrier _is_ the data, just like records -- its just you get more flexibility in representation, aka "more rope".
The question of this thread is, "is this too much rope".
