There is of course the classic AMA on "feudalism didn't exist" here, but it's nearly a decade old. Have there been any recent developments in medievalist studies? Is the current consensus pointing one way or another, or is there not really a dichotomy of feudlalism did/didnt exist anymore? Have any frameworks been developed? Of course I understand that this is a very broad question, so equally broad, general and vague answers are welcome.
There is of course the classic AMA on "feudalism didn't exist" here, but it's nearly a decade old.
Unfortunately, the majority of the research topic in medieval Europe does not completely change the tide within the span of decade.
While more can always be said, I also summarized a very brief histriographical development of a few individual areas after Reynolds before in, together with some essential readings: IAmA Postgrad who would like to learn more about modern debates on feudalism - what books should I read to get the quickest and most comprehensive overview?
In the linked thread, my summary points out a few recent (though since 1970s) issues at stake, often tied with the notorious feudalism debate.
Have any frameworks been developed?
Rather than the simple dichotomy of existence/ absence of the feudalism as a fundamental politico-social relation, the avoidance of feudalism by medieval historians in general should also be seen from their recent preference of more nuanced and fluid (rapidly changing) images of European society within the classical periodization of the "Middle Ages." "Feudal"/ "Feudalism" had often been employed to denote the stagnation throughout the whole Middle Ages for too long, and also been haunted by too many prejudices as well as definitions.
Especially as for the Early Middle Ages, some alternative concepts like the friendship, the arbitrator in conflict solutions, or theocratic rulership can instead perhaps be used to define the excepted role of the ruler, but they seem not to attract enough attention especially from non-specialists.