Well, I guess it is just a matter of how a golf course design arrives or evolves to a higher level of critical acclaim. Some architects have been good enough to hit the right notes from the git-go. But, I am thinking that many of our highly acclaimed courses of this era, were tinkered with over years until ceratin design features fell into place and arrived eventually at a better playing design concept either in specific individual hole evolution, to the more extreme tinkering of overall routing and reworked design ideas.
So what? Yes, the GCA can advertise himself as a design firm that gets it right the first time and that may translate to a better competitive advantage to get new projects. But, the management or new management of developments that may need rework can taut themselves as having the wherewithall to not be afraid to make changes to 'get it right for the member/customer'. In the end, if the product is good out of the box, or gets there eventually, the golfer should get to play a great design sooner or later, if all the people in the decision making loop are motivated to pursue excellence.
It is the developer who has the fat in the fire, and some suffer because it wasn't well decided or conceived right out of the box. That is the risk and part of good and bad decisions based on so many factors from marketing a big name player archie, to selecting those who have had more success on the first iteration. But, to the golf consumer, getting to play a version that is utlimately the best quality is the goal, and the consumer leaves it to the developers to suffer the anxieties of getting it right.