After finishing my M.A.Sc. in Canada, I had been interviewed with my current supervision team in my current Swiss university to start a Ph.D. In that time, it was fairly obvious that the project I was supposed to work on would not prolong for whole four years. In the course of those interviews, particularly, my co-supervisor (whose financial resources supports my studies) had asked my what I would do if the project finishes sooner than what my Ph.D. deserves. I had answered that I would find a broader problem statement to generalize the solution to the (theoretical) aspects of the project. He had said nothing when he had heard it.
I just started my Ph.D. on Oct. 31st, 2018, and I defended my proposal in the Oct. 2019 becoming a Ph.D. candidate. In that proposal, whose content were fully known to both of them, I had noted the main problem statement of the project, as well as another as an extension (to work on one the main project is done). Before the candidacy exam, I was pretty productive not only in terms of the progression of the project but also in view of my publications (3 proceedings and 2 journal papers, 4 other journal papers are also under review now).
Today, I just received an email from my supervisor stating that he and the co-supervisor has discussed my case, and they think that I better finish my Ph.D. by the end of this year. He said I may later consider the extension problem statement, only if I can find some money to support myself in a potential post-doc period. He has fixed a zoom call for the Monday to discuss that with me in the presence of my co-supervisor. He also sent me a line of the law associated with the doctoral school of my university to support the validity of their standpoint:
Ordinance on the doctorate at XXX, art. 9, pt 2. As a general rule, the subject must allow for the thesis to be completed within a four-year period from the candidate's official enrolment date (October 31st, 2018 in your case), with a minimum required period prior to the oral examination (Art. 15) of two years.
In return, I shortly responded to his email by stating that the idea of finishing my Ph.D. just within two years is not a sound plan for me, because I later want to try to apply for some post-doc and finally tenure-track positions in North America. A two-year Ph.D. is way lower than their standards, and it shall seriously diminish my chances on that side. I also reminded them about the fact that they should have been honest and should have frankly told me that I am supposed to be dumped once the project in done regardless of how much time is passed from the start of my Ph.D. (I said all in a very professional tune without any aggression). I also noted that even if they don't like the extension problem statement, I am open to discuss about what they may alternatively prefer to be done. In the end, I reiterated again that finishing my Ph.D. in two years is not a thing I could imagine.
Now, I am thinking about the optimal way I should approach this issue. Finishing in just two years is literally like wasting two years of my life as I do know that almost every search committee would raise eyebrow when they see a two-year Ph.D. in my CV. I fill this whole story is totally unfair and hideously disappointing. I am heading toward a very important meeting with them that I have no idea how I should react if they just throw a THAT'S IT to me and simply make me end my Ph.D. How should I manage such a potential worst-case scenario?
PS. 1 I am in an STEM field, if does matter.
PS. 2 My university assigns each Ph.D. candidate to a mentor to whom she can bring any issue which could not be resolved in the circle of herself and her supervisors. Because of the pandemic, I can't meet mine, and he has not answered my email regarding my consultation request.