Now that we concluded the x86 and ARM builder images will keep a separate name and not use Docker multi-arch images, there is no reason to keep the "-aarch64.wasm" suffix. Every combination of builder image+version will create different compile outputs that may or may not be functionally equivalent. But for reproducing the builds you need source+builder image+version anyways.
Also there is nothing wrong with using the arm images at this point. They are perfectly alright. The only limitation is that if you use them on production, you make it very hard or impossible for x86 users (such as servers) to reproduce them. So using x86 images still remains best practice.
Now that we concluded the x86 and ARM builder images will keep a separate name and not use Docker multi-arch images, there is no reason to keep the "-aarch64.wasm" suffix. Every combination of builder image+version will create different compile outputs that may or may not be functionally equivalent. But for reproducing the builds you need source+builder image+version anyways.
Also there is nothing wrong with using the arm images at this point. They are perfectly alright. The only limitation is that if you use them on production, you make it very hard or impossible for x86 users (such as servers) to reproduce them. So using x86 images still remains best practice.