Actually, I think Pat Mucci comes up with the most creative threads of anyone on the site. I marvel at his ability to come up with so many thoughts that relate to golf architecture.
A few thoughts bout rating categories. As a 15 year panelist for GD I both love and hate the categories,
For me the most important categories are shot values, memorability, memorability, and design variety.
While each panelist is given a brief explanation for each category, I have discovered that each of us has given our unique twist to most of them.
For instance; conditioning. Some panelist want the ANGC look. On the other hand I take off for overwatered fairways that do not allow the ball to run. At Merion I took off for the lack of an intermediate rough. The fairways are usually firm and if you are one foot off the fairway you are in rough up to your a**. I played with one panelist who took off points for the eyebrow bunkers at Hidden Creek. I loved it. In fact at my home course when the members bought Four Streams the powers at hand removed the scruffy look on the bunkers. I think it removed some of the character of the course.
Shot values are doubled in the accounting. Conditioning is the least important category, as I think it tends to promulgate the ANGC syndrome. When I played Sage Valley, Mr Wyatt (sp?) made a big point about the conditon of the course. He wanted to outcondition ANGC.
The reason I think categories are important can be illustrated by Bulle Rock. I really dislike the course. I would not be unhappy if I never play it again. It is Pete Dye at his creative worst. Most holes he had designed already. In an of itself this may not be bad, but I real tire of an 18th cape hole and some kind of peninsula or island green. If I were to grade the course I would give it a C. On the other hand it is a good test of golf when I grade it according to the categories. Shot values are a 6.5 or 7. Design variety is also 6 or 6.5. (The fact that they are copies has no bearing). And so on.
But it is only one man's opinion.