>>116771219Basically, yes.
It absolutely is plastic, but I think it's the most practical solution. The amount of varying series is only going to increase, some closer, some further from the original formula. I'm confident that there will be at least one future series that adheres to it closely, but it will also make references to Discovery and Picard, making them a "required reading" that by your definition, falls outside of Star Trek.
I think your insistence than the episode formula is what defines trek is ultimately arbitrary, and also defined retroactively.
Rodenberry did not say "following the Alien Trap of the week is the sole defining quality Star Trek, nothing else".
If Star Trek: The Original Series: The Squeakuel was actually about characters named Spock, Kirk, McCoy and Sulu all sailing a Renaissance ship on earth, then you would be arguing that Star Trek is defined by having characters of those four names.
I know for a fact that there were people saying Deep Space 9 is not a real star trek, because it didn't take place on a starship called Enterprise.
Right now it is enough for most people that it "holds the name Star Trek legally, and that it contains some of the same species", because - and you can't deny that - this is also something that all previous series had in common.