Maybe I am grumpy closing out Fri afternoon, but from my view point, you seem to go through all that data and somehow quickly conclude that gca.com should go out and study one of the "favored" architects and courses. That quick (and predictable) conclusion seemingly cancels out whatever value you thought science brought to this.
Secondly, just as Tom Fazio didn't bring in a second "next generation of game changing design thought", it seems fairly clear, based on history, that whoever changes the architecture game next is someone we haven't heard of (or barely so) not Doak, Hanse, CC, etc.
Tom is a little closer to the mark, but uses his traditional old courses are the best courses line of thought, while naming some courses that are in fact, genuinely fun to play. No problem there, but it seems likely to me (for at least an American audience) to study some courses here that were built in a time when public golf was exploding, that were and are popular at least as a counterpoint. After all I believe the one size fits all mode is done, and American courses might use the best American models for that (while the 2000 era used the best CCFAD or TPC as their models)
You may also be jumping to conclusions that the gca rankings are unquestionably superior. You can believe that of course, but I wonder if some attempt to blend these two or analyze the differences might be more scientific. In reality, only shot values changes places between these two rankings.
And, of course, I have seen NGF rankings of "why they play" among public golfers (presumably these new golfers start there) and you will find maintenance, conditioning, ambiance all up near the top. In other words, both Golf Digest and GCA.com use advanced players and "intelligentsia" in their rankings, while the NGF polls those more likely to be among the newbs we want to attract. Conditioning (by GD rules and popular opinion here) is by force ranked much lower than in reality.
In short, it seems like someone trying to find another way to say "aren't modern minimalists great? I can't imagine architecture ever being better, can you?" I think, over time, things will change in a way none of us can predict. Trying to pigeonhole the creativity into categories like this reminds me of both the old Russian five year plans, and many generals planning the next war based on the last one.
However, with all that rant behind me, I will say the shorter part seems to be part of the equation. Talking with a management company type last week, he thought about the worst thing you could do now is market your course as "the longest in the land" as public golfer sentiment does seem to be truly changing towards shorter courses.
Anyway, just my $0.04 (seems I said too much to be just $0.02 worth......)