I think the opposite, as agents approach human levels of coding and multiple agents work together as a team to code, and check that code in an adversarial manner, companies that do not adopt them will put out less code, of lower quality, for far more money.

There is no mitigation for that situation which would allow human coders to retain their place in the ecosystem.

A man can dig a ditch in a week for £500. 7 men can dig a ditch in a day for £700. 1 man and a digger can dig a ditch in a day for £250.

"But I use knowledge and my brain to do my job, my job is special!"

Not any more it isn't...

What's worse, companies might be fine with "devaluing their own IP", since companies are not deciding, execs are.

And those execs will get their bonuses anyway, and will be drinking their champagne far away from their executive roles and the company by the time that's felt.

Ultimately, what is the point of knowledge acquisition and easy maintenance?

To make the work easier for humans to do.

What is the point of knowledge acquisition by humans and easy maintenance if an AI is doing the work?

Some people paint, but if you want to record a scene instantly you press a button on a camera. You don't need to know what the camera does to record the image, you don't need to know how to paint, or anything to do with image manipulation. The tool takes care of that for you. Humans have always offloaded work to machines any chance they get. Other humans have always cried that those tools are the end of human ability, from just writing in 370BC to the smartphone in 2007.