I think the idea of this interpretation is specifically not to have any implications outside of what we already know. They should be equivalent in the sense that you can derive one from the other.

It's like making Newtonian mechanical predictions based on F=ma vs. energy arguments, or analysing computation using a Turing machine vs. lambda calculus. The theory can't fundamentally change but you can use a different conceptual framework to get the same results (and some may be much easier to work with / more intuitive than others).

I don't think it would have any implications, unless it predicted new behaviour above and beyond what the mathematics already described. This kind of debate is all about philosophical interpretation, the actual mathematics of QM are extremely well understood, and a different understanding of what 'really happens' (be it waves, many worlds, random collapse or whatever) would not affect how we already know quantum computers can work.