Your comment is not correct though.
1) licensing doesn't require them to have the system in place. In fact, YouTube created the system to avoid lawsuits and is imposing it on rightsholders.
2) EUCD is not yet active. It will start 6/7/2021. CID works this way for last 12 years.
Also what you call "best practices" is called "best effort" and is related to licensing not technology. In fact the law explicitly states that filtering technology is not required.
99% of problems on YouTube are caused by the way their system is setup not by the technology itself. For instance, if single rightsholder claims 10s of content in 19 hour video, they get 100% of all money generated by the content. That has nothing to do with any deal nor the technology.
YouTube doesn't want to be in middle of the disputes, so gives the responsibility in hands of rightsholders. That's changing with the EUCD which explicitly requires the platforms to be the arbiter.
YouTube also allows only 9,000 companies and individuals to have access to what they call manual claiming, which allows them manually "overwrite" the system and produces situations like these.
There is so much more. But the problem is truly with YouTube's setup, not the technology they developed, which is quite ok.
If Google wants to continue with Content ID, the fix is easy: hold ad money in escrow until their entire dispute process is complete (from the initial flag). This will prevent the ad money piracy that is so rampant on the platform right now.
You are misinformed. YT System has nothing to do with the EUCD17 which is not yet active. CID was built 12 years ago to get out of the Viacom lawsuit.
EUCD17 (or more precisely its implementations) are laws that you can actually sue under. They have concrete obligations (licensing, alternative dispute resolution, ...) and concrete penalties for misbehavior.
In fact, as it stands, YouTube's Content ID is not going to be complaint with the requirements of the EUCD17.
Actually, EUCD17 is a bit more insidious: it's a sliding scale of "best practices", which means that when content companies demand a better system of one licensee, every other player in the space (regardless of if they do business with that licensee) loses their liability protection until they meet that licensee's standard. That's how they were able to get away with claiming it didn't have upload filters: they just made it so that a court could point to YouTube and say "why aren't you as good as YouTube in taking things down"?