Following on to Tom MacWood's statement, each of the architects, modern or classic, learned a "method" as much as followed a style when working with certain type of land characteristics. When working in sand barrens, they reflect the methods they learned to shape and create features in that specific meduim. When working in tighter soils and parkland terrain they learned other methods to shape and hold together features, and of course techniques to drain the land. They may have some pattern to routing as a matter of how they see utilization of the terrain most efficiently, but I doubt it is readily identifiable.
I don't see Dr MacKenzie following just one style exclusively. Perhaps a certain tendency in pattern shape of bunkers at Crystal Downs, Ohio State- Scarlet, or Pasatiempo, because the land quality is specific, but that work is certainly diverse from Cypress Pt or Royal Melbourne sand based terrain. His associates and construction teams certaily influenced his design styles. Maxwell greens, Russell shaping, American Construction Co. techniques all played a part.
Coore and Crenshaw are no different. There is no bell curve exactly. From what I have observed (mostly in pictures) the terrain and soil dictates the style far more so than some defined parameters of style. C&C associates all have their developed construction techniques and tendancies, that translate to an imprint on each of their work efforts. Jeff Bradley will have a techique that will vary from James Duncan's or Craigs or Dan Proctor, or even touches added by guys like Mike O'Neil. There is no specific identifiable pattern between places like Friars Head, Cuscowilla, Notre Dame, Hidden Creek, Kapalua and Talking Stick because the land and weather only allows for certain techiques. Maxwell influenced C&C on their green ideals, but everything becomes adaptive to land and resources that exist.
Doak and his Renaissance team are no different. And, as I have mentioned before, some cross polination of associates has taken place. How do you say that Doak has a bell curve of identifiable design character comparing Lost Dues to Highpoint to Texas Tech to Pac Dunes to Cape Kidnappers? I just don't think it is such an identifiable "comfort zone" that has their fingerprints readily attributable. I will admit that certain archies like Ross and Raynor have more ridged patterns than others.
But, much of it is learned and then shared techique because the specific land only allows for certain design approaches. Conventional wisdom as to what was desired strategy of the basics of the game from its origins were also common knowledge. How is it that Langford and Raynor have so much stuff that looks similar if not for learned techniques for certain terrain and conventional wisdom of the strategy of golf and the object of how it was to be played?