As I have learned on this web site, the creation of a golf course is a combination of designing, shaping, clearing, building, modifying etc and the act of cutting, raking, watering & fertilizing over let's say the grow in period, with little formal effort to document, then the entire "restoration" definition in the world fo GCA is either problematic or extremely subjective.
I have no issue with that.
How do you evaluate the quality or accuracy of a "restoration" of course you are a bit cool to?
There are clearly a lot of courses that have a few pretty good holes, but need a real "do-over" on a bunch of other holes. Why should these courses be "restored"? They should be "improved".