The guild has apparently declared, "Text types are dead." However, the announcement may be a bit premature.
The CBGM simply dispenses with them. Assigning manuscripts to text types "has become obsolete." Geography, moreover, has become virtually irrelevant. It's no longer a criterion for textual criticism, we are told.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love it when scholars push back against "consensus" views. That's great! I've done that a few times myself. For example, I've rejected Markan priority, and I think I have some pretty good reasons for doing so, even though the guild as a whole still espouses it and I myself taught it for many years.
So are text types dead? Maybe, maybe not. Seems the guild will be publishing a book on the subject shortly. Until then, I'm still comfortable identifying variants (when possible) by region and giving weight to readings that enjoy what seems to be wider geographical attestation. But to do this one has to take into account not only the Greek manuscripts but the ancient versions and the citations of the Fathers as well. And this may well be the elephant in the room no one is talking about. For instance, I love the Tyndale House Greek New Testament. I recommend it to my students. But its usefulness is, in my opinion, hampered by its failure to include the testimony of the versions and Fathers in its apparatus.
On the other hand, if the provenance of a reading doesn't matter, why bother?
When it comes to challenging the consensus opinion (on any subject), there are a lot of philosophies and mindsets that might work, but I usually give two points to my students:
1) Draw boundaries, both hard and soft. To do this it helps if you can say "no." Some people, however, may not want or need to do that. It's up to you.
2) Manage your expectations of what you get for "giving in" to the majority view in any area of research. Meaning you can't just "go with the flow" without thinking through the issues for yourself. Remember that you don't have to follow the majority. Or you might want to if you feel like it. (You are, for example, absolutely free to disregard my views on the historical origins of the Gospels. I just ask that you consider my arguments before you do that.)
I really should say that I'm not an expert in textual criticism. Just a TC enjoyer. I know people love to discuss/debate the subject, so feel free to check out the books, journal articles, and blog posts I've published on textual criticism. But you don't HAVE to become conversant in the subject. Plenty of believers go their entire lives without worrying too much about textual variants. After all, we haven't lost a single word of the Greek New Testament. (The original reading is found either in the text or in the apparatus.)
Have a wonderful day!