In Home Office Inspections wouldn't affect most of you. (link below)
"FINRA Rule 3110(c) requires that home offices or non-branch offices where an associated person engages in specified supervisory activities are treated as offices of supervisory jurisdiction (OSJs), and therefore required to be inspected annually."
From a FINRA perspective this wouldn't affect people who are outside of the FINRA scope. FINRAs many posts, articles and FAQs repeatedly call out people who are 'registered' with FINRA - so they would be subject to an in home office inspection scenario.
You would be exempt from FINRA registration if your roles is "Solely clerical and/or ministerial in nature". I read that to mean that if you work in (examples) Auto Loans or HR or Corp Risk then you don't need to register with FINRA and are not subject to a home office inspection.
https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/external_apps/p019222.html#:~:text=Employees%20exempt%20from%20FINRA%20registration,participation%20(limited%20partners)%2C%20OR
HOWEVER, WF could use use this as a means to further their RTO agenda.
An example of overreach (in my opinion) is this - originally when WF started labelling people as 'regulated' users (subject to SEC oversight) it was a small group of broker-dealer and investment people, but then didn't they also expand their own definition of regulated users to be anyone that supported a regulated user? Last I heard that was all of WIM. Could all of WIM be subject to RTO/5D? Possibly, if it furthers the RTO objective, I see this as a real possibility.
But what about LOBs who are not supporting FINRA or SEC activities? Many of us don't want to RTO/5D and it seems unfair to subject us all to RTO/5D based on an obscure government oversight ruling that doesn't affect us at all.
How we feel is not important though. Remember that.