Totally opposite I think they are doing the best they can.
They started the season promising to be more lenient. Then they started penalizing everything, with it culminating in Canada where a win was lost due to a very strict penalty. So for 2 races they decide to not punish shit, so we have another slightly controversial win (this time because of the lack of a penalty), Ferrari then gets a fine instead of a penalty for an unsafe release, Hamilton gets a minor penalty for a fairly big offense on paper. Now they're saying they were too lenient with the unsafe release, the Austria situation was probably okay, and the Hamilton penalty was, ironically, too strict despite the fact they literally introduced a bollard to be able to punish that very behaviour.
To me it seems that they have no idea how strict they should be, realizing that each side has ups and downs, and always immediately reacting to the downside of each instead of putting thought into the decisions. They should just finish this season on the same reasoning they've been having and then during the downtime decide where to draw the line. The fact that race after race the steward philosophy changes completely is very stupid imho. Particularly baffling for me as a Ferrari fan: had they remained strict, Leclerc would have won in Austria, were they lenient all the time Vettel would have won in Canada. Whichever route would have brought a Ferrari win, but since they bounced back and forth they took away both somehow. In a vacuum both decisions can be understood, but the issue is, as always, consistency.