There is a possibility these attribution battles could be harmful. In the case of a working architect, such as Tom Doak or myself, the history of who did what is already confused. It may be confused by associates who later go out on their own, and for that matter, it’s surprising how often a shaper, or in one case, a farmer hired to seed one of my courses was later heard to take credit for construction and design. In other cases, shapers tell stories (sometimes even justified!) of how they “saved an architect’s ass” on this or that green or project.
So, yes, motivation either at the time of design, or even much later can do much to confuse the old “who did what” scenario. It is especially possible when the motivation is to make a name for oneself, either in biz for himself, or as a historical exert who obviously would love to get some notches in the bedpost by discovering “new” history.
I do agree it’s interesting, and promise to start/continue to write as much as I remember about what associates may have been most involved in any of my 50 designs, and if applicable, any particular “great ideas” they contributed.
As Tom and Pat hint, the architect of record probably wants to retain the credit he should get for signing a contract, marshalling the forces, etc.
But, here is the rub. I happened to have dinner with a former associate last night, and we did talk over the old times. Even then, with no hard feelings about him splitting off, we still remembered a few things differently on some projects. In truth, if he was “in the field” on certain projects at certain times, he may very well remember something better than I. In other cases, he may or may not know how a plan got drawn, if done by someone else in the office while he was out.
Trying to parse out the typical collaborative process (and throw in Owner, contractor, land planner (like Olmstead at Augusta – how do we know he didn’t dictate the land available for the golf course to MacKenzie?) will likely be futile, even if fun.