So it is clear the current Slope Rating Values around the USGA Course Rated Golf Courses are flawed !!!!
You're imagining a single player of each type and a single arrangement of landing areas, hazards and obstacles and supposing that if they don't line up then somehow the system fails to function as intended. There's a whole continuum of driving distances at every level of handicap and a near-infinite set of possible landing area, hazard and obstacle combinations. If the center of that continuum is a few yards off from your supposed Reality it matters not at all for the purposes of computing a useful handicap.
Keep in mind that the entire, sole purpose of the rating process is to produce a repeatable evaluation of a golf course such that on average across golfers of a wide range of individual handicaps and specific skills within a given handicap the resulting rating will allow computation of a handicap differentials that correctly register the player's performance in a given round. It works just fine for a scratch golfer who drives it 193.673 yards or a bogey golfer who drives it 281.9732432 yards or any other combination you might imagine. Not a problem at all.
No possible course rating system will correctly (by your reasoning) match up with the particular characteristics of any specific golfer. Just not possible to encode that in two parameters. You seem to be objecting to the fact that the process has very detailed measurements and coding formulas when there are underlying parameters which are set at somewhat arbitrary round numbers. Here's the thing. You have no choice at all but to have underlying parameters that are arbitrary constants like "250 yards". The only choice available is whether to measure the things that
can be exact in an exact manner or not.
What would you rather them do, just have the course raters eyeball it and say "That bunker's pretty damned far from the landing area but that hazard line is too close for comfort"? Of course not. They identify the specified point, apply the specified adjustments, measure as closely as practical the distance to various nearby features and plug it all into a highly specific formula. They could easily change "250 yards" to "275 yards" or "275 meters" or "the average driving distance in the second round of the 2004 U.S. Amateur, exact to eleven decimal places" and do the whole process on that basis.
The end result in any case is some guy with a "2.3 index" and another guy with a "14.6 index" are going to play a match and the low-marker will end up giving the other guy fourteen strokes or whatever the formula says. If all the courses they had ever played had been rated with something other than "200 yards" or "250 yards" as the landing-area measurement he'd still end up giving fourteen strokes. Or maybe by some obscure alignment of the numbers he'd end up giving thirteen strokes or fifteen. So what?
The whole thing is a stab in the dark. Quit trying to lawyer every arbitrary number that was written into the rating protocol. It has nothing to do with getting or giving strokes. There is no objective, exact, universal Reality out there that those numbers need to comport with.