What was the goal with the third green from your perspective?
The goal with the third green was to return it to Thompson's original position, and to try to build something faithful to the original hole.
[The green we replaced was one of four built by Robbie Robinson before the Canadian Open in the 1960's. It was barely flat enough for any hole locations, totally inconsistent with the rest of the course based on its orientation across the line of play, and back in a corner of the property where they couldn't grow grass due to shade from trees on neighbors' property. Other than that, it was below average.]
Our information on the contours of the original green was very sketchy, but the few descriptions we had said the green was two-tiered, and too steep for modern green speeds even in 1965 ... so we couldn't have put it back exactly the same even if we'd had the details. The false front was the best we could do for taking up some of the fall from back to front. Our first attempt at the green was flatter but there was a much steeper bank just short of the green, and it was clear from old pictures that players who came up short should be chipping up the green, not having to pitch up a steep bank ... so we lowered the green and made a false front to tie it in. The new bunkers in front of the green are the best we could do at restoring Thompson's original bunkering, from the fuzzy photo we had of them -- that was the highlight of the new hole for me.
I did suggest we fill in one of the previously existing bunkers at the far back left, but lots of people were queasy about that idea, so we left them as part of the hole.
Is a false front somehow inconsistent with Thompson's style of design? I didn't think so, since it appeared from our historical info that the front part of #7 was originally just a false front that was never pinned, and #16 and #18 both have them.