That's my take on it - I seem to be one of the few who actually preferred this series to the first two, once I "got" around Programme 3/4 that no one was getting evicted on the issue of culinary skills, and the tasks were blatantly set up for disasters and dramatic emotional meltdowns. I severely doubt that this was set up with the Winkers in mind - surely it would have been much easier to make them look less like the Chuckle brothers through the edit.
I'd only add that I've got more than a little suspicion that the final stages were produced with more than one eye on a "What happened next" follow-up series - from the reaction here it may have been a miscalculation, but I'll be watching if it emerges

.
In particular the souffle gave us five minutes of brilliant RTV comedy - by the time Nathan's half of the table realised there was a party going on chez Lady Arran, I was in hysterics.
.... but surely a failed souffle is invariably a sagging sack or a beer mat ... what are the chances of it being the foundation for a riproaring cocktail.?
The most obvious answer to "Why the Winkers?" would be that strip away the pork pies and the served in picnic hampers nonsense, it's actually a half-decent idea. Aiming at the young fills a gap in the RB empire, Sarah comes from Planet Hollywood experience - I'd have thought if they can keep the prices high, serving cocktails matched with smallish platters of food would give a decent profit margin and a niche on the high street which was what the intro told us was the point every single week,