I recall in Doak's 'Anatomy of a Golf Course' that an inverse relationship between difficulty and green size could work.
Take a hole where the 'better player' will consider getting on for two (this could be a par 4 or a par 5). For the lesser player, it will be a three shot hole, so an option for them might be a positional play from where an effective pitch can be played if the skill is applied. However, the 'better player' will find it a challenge with his second shot approach, and encourage him to improve his game in this area, or to develop his recovery game to meet the challenges of the hazards that he encounters.
By contrast, the short par 4 is often a small target green surrounded by bunkers. Doak commented that this is the occasion a lesser player has of hitting a green in two, and he is faced with a small target with fearsome hazards and a mid-iron! Meanwhile, the 'better player' can attack this target with a wedge - the small target is large enough not to pose a challenge.
I liked you conjecture about what lesser players and better players would prefer. Assuming we are interested in testing skill, then some potential for recovery is required (otherwise, that sand hazard has as much skill test as a small, shallow water hazard). Do severe, small pot bunkers provide a test of skill?
With firm and fast greens, I know of many 'lesser players' who are happier playing a ground game shot from 25mm (1 inch) light rough at say 100 to 150 yards out, whilst 'better players' will struggle with spinning a wedge from the same position. Note, firm and fast and ground game options are necessary.