a) proof requires a frame of reference to even understand it -- namely experience -- you can't grok something you haven't experienced. This is like someone telling the blind man that he can understand color.
The people applying for the prize obviously think there's a quantifiable effect, or they wouldn't be applying.
b) What constitutes iron-clad proof anyways? Proof is relative. What you accept for "proof" depends on your spiritual maturity. To a spiritual idiot there is no such proof BY their definition. To a true skeptic, they would be intrigued that the answer could either way.
The evidence IS there, for a real scientist to consider, IF they are able to open their eyes for a moment. I haven't seen any evidence that Randi is tired of being blind.
So your argument is that Randi is trying to prevent the acknowledgement of proof that by definition cannot be proven. I'm sorry but that is stupid.
He doesn't test the unquantifiable. That's in the requirements. There has to be a quantifiable effect, or you shouldn't bother to apply for the prize.
Randi makes no judgement on the possibility of any para-normal science. He just says "show me that your claim that it affects the material world is demonstrable". Show him that in a double-blind test, you can demonstrate a reproducible, quantifiable effect of your "power". If your power has no material effect, he doesn't care either way.