Why are draconian abilities mismatched?

[Segev]

Except there are - I mean, in Fizban's.
Draconians - Draconians are bipedal monsters born from dragon eggs that have been corrupted or warped by powerful magic. Most often, this corruption is a deliberate act, the work of an aspiring tyrant seeking to transform stolen eggs into a draconian army. A single corrupted egg yields several draconians of the same kind. A draconian might be taken for a dragonborn at first glance, though most kinds of draconians have wings. When draconians die, they do not go quietly. Instead, their lifeless bodies unleash a last act of magical violence.

Draconian Dreadnought - The largest of the draconians are the dreadnoughts, who are born from the eggs of silver, blue, or sapphire dragons.
Draconian Foot Soldier - The most numerous draconians are the foot soldiers, who are born from brass, white, or crystal dragon eggs.
Draconian Infiltrator - Copper, black, and topaz dragon eggs yield these sly and stealthy draconians, who often serve their creators as scouts and spies.
Draconian Mage - Draconians born from the eggs of bronze, green, and emerald dragons have some ability to wield magic.
Draconian Mastermind - The rarest and most powerful of the draconians are the masterminds—spellcasters and strategists who most often serve as military commanders or as advisors to those who created them. They emerge from gold, red, or amethyst dragon eggs, wingless but possessed of an arsenal of eldritch power.

So while, yes, there's no FORGOTTEN REALMS lore about Draconians specifically - they are, as I said, "generalizing" them for just D&D by using numerous dragons to "create" these Draconians, rather than the ones specifically mentioned in Dragonlance.

You're missing my point.

Why is this FTD choice "more generic" or "generalized" in a way that necessitates changing what the Dragonlance source material said? If you want to include more dragon types, that's fine and dandy; you still should make sure that the Dragonlance source lore is consistent with it. If, for example, the Dragonlance Source Lore says that a Draconian made from a Gold Dragon has the midas touch (I know it doesn't say that, but bear with me), then when you make it more general to include additioanl dragon types, you retain the "petrifying touch" draconian type, and specify that it comes from gold dragons plus whatever others you group with it that aren't present in Dragonlance's lore. Maybe with some special text that the petrification takes the form of the dragon's associated material.

That way, you have no "wait, what?" questions about why gold draconians no longer have the midas touch. In this example.

To "generalize" something in a way that breaks the original, less general lore, requires that there be something in extrinsic lore you need to find a way to reconcile. You might drop some overly-specific things that don't work in general, but you shouldn't just make up new stuff that breaks with existing source material for no reason and then say, "Generaization!" as your excuse.

What makes the new stuff "more general" than the old stuff in a way that requires the old lore be broken to accommodate it? Why couldn't the old lore have been used to make the basis of the more general lore, such that backwards compatibility is maintained?

"It's more general" is actually a false statement, because nothing about the new abilities is somehow more general, except by declaring it to apply to non-Dragonlance draconians. It could have been equally general if it were the exact same abilities as Dragonlance draconians...unless I'm missing something. (I confess to not being well-versed in Dragonlance lore. I am only reacting to how poor I find the argument of, "It's more general!" to be in this case.)