Especially as one who has studied Tillinghast's designs and philosophies of designs intently for more than a decade, I find this discussion fascinating on a variety of levels.
First and foremost is the need for clear-cut definitions that without which misunderstandings take over. By "definitions" I am not meaning how we today understand the word or phrase but, rather, how the original designer would have defined it.
For example, Tom Doak, in refering to hs work at Camargo said, "Eventually, it dawned on me. Both holes in question were slight doglegs, with the bunker on the inside..."
Now it seems to me that this statement also implies that dogleg can have a bunker on the OUTSIDE of the turn in his definition of a dogleg and possibly one NOT on the insise. In other words, what seems to define the word "dogleg" for Tom, and I'm certain he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is a hole that turns or bends around a certain point changing it's original orientation.
Now this isn't a right or wrong point, but an example of how a different architect defined "dogleg" more specifically and in a different manner than what I am presuming Tom meant.
Tily defined a dogleg as follows - "A dog-leg hole provides some pronounced obstruction, which forms a corner in a twisted fairway from either side. If it be impossible to carry over this obstruction, but at the same time necessary to get beyond it in order to open up the next shot, we have a Dog-leg... If a similar Obstruction may be carried by a courageous shot, we have an Elbow."
So in Tilly's mind the hole type is not simply defined by the fact that it bends and has an obstruction, but how the INSIDE OBSTRUCTION ONLY affetca the desired second shot.
That dcertainly seems different than Tom's definition and Tom is quite correct in defining a hole in his manner. But proper restoration of the hole clearly requires understanding not only of the original designer's construction intent but his philosophical one as well. For we look at what has been built with our own eyes and how our minds define what we see. Understanding the philosophy of what was behind the design is more important.
In my opinion then, an architect attempting to restore another's work to reflect his original intent for today's player and game needs to get inside the other's mind as much as the way his course was played.