Not really answering the question and coming from an ACT perspective:
When we had a new version of the Act, with a new set of default rules (aka by-laws or articles), older owners corporations from before a certain date had the option to adopt the new set by appropriate resolution but otherwise their pre-existing rules would remain in force.
This prompted our OC to review our existing rules. Some were novel and customised for our particular OC back in the 1970s and had no equivalent in the old or new default sets. Some of those remain useful and were left alone and remain in effect.
Some other old rules were rescinded because they were no longer of any effect because they referred to no longer relevant circumstances (eg. were only relevant during the early development of the site) or because the matters they covered were now covered by provisions of the Act. In the latter cases, it did not matter what our rules said because the Act had precedence.
Some other old rules were nearly the same as the modern default rules, differing mainly in drafting style rather than substance. For those we ‘amended’ the rule by adopting the wording of the new default rule.
A few other old rules were tweaked. Eg. we had a rule of our own from the 1970s about not growing plants that could be a nuisance or noxious but it was quite ineffectual because you could always argue the toss. We kept the old rule verbatim but added on the end “…or any plant recognised as an invasive weed or a pest plant by relevant authorities in the ACT.” That retained the intention of the old rule but made it much easier to point at someone’s invasive weeds and say ‘That plant is on the schedule of the ACT Pest Plant and Animal Act 2005’ so please get rid of it. As the schedule of the Act is updated for new weeds our rule remains unequivocal.
Other OCs just had the old default set of rules. For them the simplest might have been to pass one resolution to rescind the entire old set and adopt the entire new default set. That was not attractive to us because we had quite a few rules that were either novel and particular to us or differed in important ways from the default rules.
I hope that helps for thinking about how to proceed. If you have an existing useful rule, I don’t think it should disappear. I doubt that the Act would be set up so you can’t keep old, useful rules that are novel or have been amended deliberately to differ from the default. I expect you just need to look at the right process so you avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. IE update selectively.