Is Murphy's Law of Complexity Theory consistent? What separations/collapses does it imply? A decade ago I observed what I dub "Murphy's Law of Complexity Theory": whenever a new separation or collapse is discovered, the question is answered in the direction that makes $P\overset?=NP$ most challenging to determine. I do not believe this rule has failed once in the intervening years. This leads me to wonder what the implications would be if the Law were actually true.

What questions could be answered using this conjecture? Are the answers consistent, or is there some set of questions such that they can't all be answered in the way that makes proving $P\overset?=NP$ most challenging without causing inconsistencies?
A counterexample to this Murphy's Law could actually be the famous paper

Baker, Theodore; Gill, John; Solovay, Robert, Relativizations of the $\cal P=?\cal N\cal P$ question, SIAM J. Comput. 4, 431-442 (1975). ZBL0323.68033.

It shows that the $P=^? NP$ question is 


hard: you cannot solve it with relativizable techniques; but also
easy: we can establish $P^A= NP^A$ for some oracles $A$, and $P^B \ne NP^B$ for some oracles $B$, so now we just have to figure out what whether a trivial oracle is more like $A$ or like $B$...