I have seen what total fealty to original design looks like, and it is not very pretty. Architects simply overlayed vintage aerial photos and plans over modern aerial photos. If a fairway bunker that is now say 250 yards off a tee was 190 yards off the tee 90 years ago, they proposed removing the new one and repositioning it to where it was. This discretionless philosophy was applied on several holes, leaving the present day low handicapper with no challenge and the present day high handicapper with an unnecessary and silly challenge. They also proposed to remove every single bunker that exists today but did not exist 90 years ago. These are bunkers that have been added by highly regarded architects over the last 30 years, and which, in the minds of many, have greatly improved the aesthetics and challenge of course.
Fortunately, the response of the membership to the proposed changes has been overwhelmingly negative. Yes, courses need to change over time to accommodate changes in the game, and a good architect is indispensable to accomplish this. But the word "restoration" is too dangerous. Renovation with an eye to the past is what is needed. Sometimes a good renovation will undo changes that were improvidently made. But a good renovation will also incorporate improvements made over time. Making the course better should be the only goal of any project, not making it the same as it was. Not all historical changes are bad.