No, the point is to preserve the original set of files to account for lost file creations after the directory rename. What point would a symlink achieve? The or

No, the point is to preserve the original set of files to account for lost file creations after the directory rename. What point would a symlink achieve? The original directory (the i-node, NOT the entry in the parent directory) with the new, unaccounted-for files would be gone and the symlink would point to a directory with only those files that would have been already preserved by the rename. So pointing "to the same old garbage" is exactly the point.