It's an outmoded concept, or should be. Of course the QM is the source, but it doesn't really matter if there's a distinction (for example) between "procedures" and work instructions. So long as the documents (and forms) that need to be controlled are controlled, and in compliance with the standard, the "pyramid" doesn't help much, imo.
I'll add my agreement. It is outmoded. And, even in the previous version of ISO, it was rarely applied appropriately.
Think about it:
The only situation where that model that made sense was a very large organization - Corporate management wrote broad policies, Division management wrote general procedures to implement the corporate policies, and finally plant management wrote specific instructions as to how they will meet all those mandates. It makes sense in that scenario.
Was it ever logical that one group would sit down, write a vague quality manual that copied the standard word-for-word, write vague procedures which had little meaningful content, then finally write work instructions which people actually used? Yet, that is what happened in many companies, and the QM and procedures were rarely actually used.
I now encourage folks to do two levels - write a quality manual (level one), and supplement it with whatever "documents" (level 2) are needed to run the company (ref. cl 4.2.1.c&d). That would include the mandatory procedures, forms, instructions, databases, etc.
A much simpler approach, and eliminates redundancy.