Here's my take on things: Clauses and bans should only exist in Ubers if they would prevent something both overcentralizing and extremely luck-reliant (turns battles into a match of coin flips). If something's only overcentralizing, then that's perfectly fine. It's almost the entire premise of Ubers. Kyogre and co. dominate the tier, but they will never be banned because an Ubers tier with Kyogre/etc. in it is still very competitive. The very first thread that brought up Clause Testing explicitly mentioned this; no Pokemon will ever be banned from Ubers unless it makes the game uncompetitive (say, it had some WTF ability that had a 50% chance of OHKOing the opponent upon switch-in, and a 50% chance of KOing itself). If something's only very luck-reliant, but weak, then that's fine too. Evasion Clause was removed for this reason; it's just not strong enough to stand up to the behemoths of the tier. For the same reason, items like Focus Band, BrightPowder, and Quick Claw are allowed; their effects just aren't strong enough. Only if something is both of the above should it be banned; this would cover the OHKO Clause and Moody Clause. As was seen earlier, removing either clause causes the metagame to be centralized around OHKO moves/Moody, and said centralizer is very luck-reliant. Only if both attributes exist does something become uncompetitive. So if Sleep Clause causes the metagame to be stuffed with Darkrai and Smeargle, then fine - there's no way in the Ubers metagame to draw the line around what is "too" overcentralizing. I would only support retaining the Sleep Clause if it turns too many matches into luckfests, as the OHKO and Moody Clause tests did before. So far, it looks like that hasn't happened. Just my two cents.