Sean,
Yes, I have always said one choice is penal, two or three choices is strategic. Rees Jones once added "4 is confusing" which I can even sort of understand. When it comes (these days) to turf reduction, the ability to provide 4 choices is getting harder and harder to do. For that matter, no one ever played that prize winning hole with 4 route options, so we don't know if options 3 and 4 would have ever gotten used. Sometimes, its just not worth it.
With an open front green (partially, of course) and gently rolling contours, the question of how close to hit to the pin vs. the fatter, easier middle is a strategic choice on every hole.
I recall a strategic bunker discussion here years ago. I made the comment that if you place a FW bunker out somewhere near the LZ, you can count on some golfers to over think it. Doak commented, listing like 11 different things a golfer might do with a single fw bunker on the left, carry it, stay short, hook around it, etc. etc. etc. proving my point (and yours, that it is the golfer who employs the thinking, not the course) and its hard to think like 25 million individual golfers might think. Just put something partially/partly in their way and it is strategic.
Obviously, some locations and concepts work better than others, and should be favored. Why build a nominally good strategic feature if others could be done? That leads to the discussion of "why not use the best on every course?" and then to using template holes.....It should make for the most variety on any one course, if well chosen, but limit variety over the course of one architect's career. Should that matter if every course has the widest variety of (good) challenges in the architect's mind?
Another random strategy though, but I once posted some sort of math analysis (probably not statistically valid, but who cares) about how many strokes strategy might save a good player vs. pure skill? I mean, there may be two par 5's reachable in two, or playing close to the pin might (might) net another birdie (maybe two birds and one bogey) In the end, I concluded that skill accounts for over 90% of score, with perhaps a 2-3 stroke difference allocated mostly to strategy. My goal, then, is to set up a variety of shots ( a la my "good test of golf thread" because encouraging a hook or fade, low or high, might tend to penal (for those who can't hit that shot) or at least a "skill challenge" without there being a real choice of good shots, other than a nice bail out if you can't or choose not to hit the preferred shot. That really is a blend, and there is no pure strategic vs penal shot in modern golf, me thinks.
BTW, I agree that there should be a few penal holes on almost any course. Or penal shots, such as a forced carry to a green, regardless of how strategic the tee shot may be. Or a narrow fairway, etc.
And, like TD says, just put in as much variety as possible and golfers should like it. Had a recent design discussion (first with design associate, then with owner) on the merits of putting a 15,000 SF green in on a short par 3. Both said we should reduce the green to make it "more like the others". Horse Feathers (in my book) Isn't the point to make each hole different? Now, you could argue the merits of a large green on a short par 3, but it will have all sorts of valleys, humps, and contours. Personally, I put the smallest greens on the longest par 3 and 4 holes as sort of a penal target, forcing long iron accuracy.
Just random thoughts generally agreeing with your premise. Not edited for form.....but I did add a few thoughts in multiple edits. LOL