Star Trek isn't Batman.
This isn't a 40s comic which already had poor standards of internal coherence to start with, written for 10 year olds, being adapted multiple times by a studio system that just treats films as a stand-alone experience, in an age before the age of Star Wars: Rogue One, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Blade Runner 2049. Context is for kings.
I'll re-post something I said in another topic:
"Prime Timeline" and "reboot" are a contradiction in terms.
People have been throwing all kinds of Orwellian redefinition around like 'soft reboot' and 'visual reboot', but basically if you consciously change something big, into something that it cannot mutually occupy - that's not a "prime timeline" anymore folks, that's a new timeline.
Now if you want to go back 90% of the way through Trek's aired material to the last time something as disruptive happened, i.e. the celebrated Motion Picture redesign of the Klingons - which is being used to justify everything these days - first, the change was done at a time when Star Trek was only three seasons long - not twenty eight seasons long - second, it changed something dramatically, not just replacing it with a 'meh' design - and third, the whole thing was not actually as hard justify in people's heads - we had authors positing multiple races of Klingon - people speculating on genetic engineering already - compare to this:.
The correct equivalence, rather than a malleable organic species, would be if the Motion Picture NCC-1701 had been a sphere or cube or something that cannot occupy the same identity, under any circumstances (jokes about the thickness of the saucer aside, it maintains enough of the basic shape that 99% of audiences wouldn't even think - and they still threw a line in about it being a refit for fans).
1968, the Klingon battlecruiser:
1979, the higher detailed Klingon battlecruiser:
1987-2001, the Klingon battlecruiser is used in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT:
2001, the unused D4 was designed by John Eaves:
2009, the Kelvin timeline's battlecruiser:
2017, it basically looks like a Dominion ship:
As The Wormhole said - to actively (i.e. proactively) choose another ship design - is to actively (with volition) disregard canon. The show can still be fully canonical, if it turns out D7 is a misunderstood term, or the Klingon designs of the past show up in future. So it's not yet set in stone. But the current 'visual reboot' would basically mean 'reboot'.
By comparison to the D7, a few holographic emitters aren't so big a deal. They can be a feature that was replaced for an obscure reason, or was just rarely seen, i.e. in Azetbur's chamber in Star Trek VI.
This is why, rather than court another controversy, the producers should just put out a definitive statement on their intentions. The only reason I can think, why terms with multiple interpretations are being used, like 'prime timeline', is that they want to sit on the fence and not alienate people hoping for canonical drama. I think honesty would build a less toxic relationship with fans. Say you are rebooting Trek if it is your intention. The act of causing controversy leads to a lot of bad faith with fans, who should ideally be your advocates, not people you lead on for season upon season. What is this, like Star Trek's third massive dispute with producers in three attempts? If it's not a reboot, throw in a battlecruiser and some facial hair, if it is, say so, and we can accept the new work for what it is.
)
