Perceived inconsistency is an inevitability. Not only because the rulebook is not written in a tight way and thus a whole range of decisions can be justified for any one incident, but also because just about everyone who analyzes DoPS decisions isn't evaluating them for fairness and logic, but rather is comparing them to their own personal first impression when they see an incident.
This kind of perceived inconsistency is much more likely to be a result of how hastily people jump to conclusions, how little introspective analysis is done in those conclusions, and thus how much inconsistency there is in those first impressions. This statement by Kane is equally hasty and without due consideration. Unlike most fans, the DoPS analyzes plays critically and breaks down all factors. When players, fans and media do the same, then they can have a conversation about consistency. When you have people saying [incident 1] is 'literally identical to' [incident 2] when there are significant differences between them, that conversation is pointless and goes nowhere.
Kane is absolutely right when he said that very few people in the NHL understand the rules and how they lead to decisions. I think it's about time they start paying attention.