I think the promotion and relegation system is a joke and the points allocation is even a bigger joke.
Disagree with the former. Without a promotion and relegation system, there is no way for strong ProTeams like Alpecin to enter the WT except for hoping an existing WT team folds, and there's also no way for a WT-unworthy team dropping out of the WT except folding. I also think the system being based on the results of the last three seasons is reasonable as it means one bad year can't destroy a team. You could argue that promotion and relegation should occur every year rather than every three years but I do think there's something to be said for allowing teams a bit of room for mid- to long-term planning.
As for the points allocation... if the smaller races yield an amount of points that's commensurate with the startlist quality, there's little incentive for WT teams to start in those races which would likely kill off a significant number of them. That being said, there's a disproportionate number of smaller races in France and Flanders in particular. While I do think that BikeExchange and other teams in the relegation battle should be doing more of these races, commercial interests mean doing anywhere near the full calendar like the home teams can is not realistic. Internationalisation should not just occur by developing the calendar in areas which don't currently have races (especially not when money is the sole driver like for the Arabian Peninsula races and Guangxi), but also by expanding the calendar in areas which currently have a limited number of races - Germany, the UK and Colombia are among the countries that come to mind - and by trying to counter the shrinkage of the calendar in places like the US. Neither really seems to be on the mind of the UCI, or most people in the sport in general.
The amount of points handed out for stages and minor classifications, on the other hand, is ridiculously low compared to one-day races and GCs. For example, Biniam Girmay scored 172 UCI points this Giro for a stage win (100), a second place (40), two fourth (2x12) and two fifth (2x4) places. That's less than the reward for seventh on GC. At small races, it's even worse - in the Tour of Hungary, for example, Fabio Jakobsen received 14 points for each of his stage wins, 5 points for a second place, and nothing for winning the points classification. The total of 33 points is less than Krists Neilands was awarded for seventh on GC. Rudy Barbier was even worse off - two seconds, a third and a fourth on stages plus second on the points classification gave him just 13 points, less than Jimmy Janssens' 11th place on GC was worth.
Having said that, everyone is aware of such flaws and yet BikeExchange, a team where three of the best four riders aren't suited to GC battles in most or all races, does a calendar that's like 90% stage races. I don't want to single them out for it either, as EF are doing something similar, and Israel have only decided to adapt their calendar in recent weeks now that they are well behind. There's not really a commercial reason to start in smaller stage races as opposed to one-day races either, so there's no excuse for racing such a poorly thought out calendar which contributes to making your future as a team needlessly uncertain.
Look, Arkéa signed a rider in Hugo Hofstetter who's mainly renowned for finishing somewhere between second and eighth on flat to rolling terrain, sent him to a bunch of flat to rolling one-day races and, surprise! They're almost certain of their golden ticket. Compare and contrast to the calendar of the riders renowned for second-to eighth-place finishes on flat to rolling terrain who are on the roster of teams in the relegation battle - or indeed to the calendar of Hofstetter himself at Israel. It really isn't rocket science why Arkéa are ahead of these teams, except to four or five team managers.