Dear dkw,
Pleased that you hv found us and welcome to the forum ! 
You hv started with an interesting post, particularly in that there are very few people here who seem to be using SQF 2000, I guess particularly due to the historical, customer driven power of BRC / geographical situations of the contributing posters.
Equally interesting to know what particular elements hv currently caused yr re-appraisal (?)
Ironically, yr comment about over - prescriptiveness is often also made against BRC but nowadays more in the opposite sense !, ie it is increasingly becoming more unintelligible as it (IMO anyway) attempts to maximise both “retailer back-protection” and auditors’ financial returns. Part of this mechanism seems to involve becoming more oriented to ISO – speak terminology (the technical point was sort of confirmed by one of its “assembler’s” on this forum somewhere). It is intriguing that (from memory) the GFSI consortium include SQF in their list as having compatible “efficiency” to BRC, they must be doing some conceptual trade-offs somewhere if yr criticism of sqf2000 is generally held. I remember posting a review here of the contents of the sqf [2-3 years back] version and was actually rather favourable to the prescriptive layout but was less impressed by some (IMO) errors in their interpretation of basic HACCP items. Then, it probably had no chance of expanding in Europe, now, via GFSI theoretically more so, but in practice probably not and additionally ISO 22000 has become a significant competitor where customers are neutral (or persuadable). It remains to be seen whether ISO 22000 will folllow the same commercialised route as ISO9000.
Sorry for the preamble, it’s an interesting topic. I suspect, from my observed experiences, that in Australia there is much more flexibility as to what standards customer’s will accept from producers with respect to FSQMS systems (?) particularly in that they are often satisfied with a basic “HACCP” certification from an approved source. If so, this is more like the Europe situation 10 years + ago and no longer exists (USA not so sure ?) so that many (most) people on this forum hv been forced (customer –driven) to move in the opposite direction and hv no option.
An obvious major factor in yr query relates to things like the “management system – ISO9000 type features” plus maybe items like regulatory HACCP which hv infiltrated into the original, more purist, HACCP layout. Accordingly, unless you wish to retain a comparable management system within the traditional HACCP setup, you will surely see documentation (ie volume) “shrinkage”. Much as I detest typical ISO-gabble, I hv to admit that their formalisation of how to set up a quality system is usually (ultimately) very elegant and relatively transparent, unfortunately the devil, as usual, is in the details (eg see the discussions here on ISO 22000 and the wrangling [horse-trading?] prior to its first introduction).
No problem that some people may not agree with the above personal viewpoint, happens occasionally. 
No doubt some users actually love the ambiguity of ISO Quality Systems, the banks maybe. 
Rgds / Charles.C
added - I felt that perhaps I should make my post a little more objective. Whether this relates to yr own current dis-satisfaction I don't know.
I think a major (minus) levied against the now widespread use of ISO 9000 is that it does not seem to hv generated a measurably significant improvement in (global) product quality.
The opposite is now generally believed to to be true of HACCP with respect to food safety although I am not sure I hv seen this anywhere specifically proven in numerical terms.
Similarly, I felt the initial implementation of some parts of thing like BRC had lifted the effectiveness of HACCP systems up a notch, particularly in overviewing the whole safety system (ie its management) and perhaps also generating more respect for the often, IMEX, downtrodden QA department. Nonetheless I also felt that some parts were simply there in deference to ISO9000 and would become a documentation headache, etc, etc. thereby de-prioritising the real power of the HACCP concept. And this latter direction IMO has sadly become an increasingly apparent characteristic, both in the retailer codes and others ( eg the Oprp saga.)
Again, am only to happy to read opposing views. 
