George,
I agree “Proportional Punishment” is a pithy phrase, but it’s as hard to obtain as perfect turf or bunkers, and I don't obsess over it any more than those other pursuits of perfection, especially any chance to attempt to make it "perfect." “Rub of the Green” is a part of golf that we can’t/won’t/don’t want to eliminate completely. And, I agree there is often a break point where similar shots are treated differently. It can't be helped.
The big picture question is whether the general proportionality concept, loosely, but not obsessively striven for, is a good design goal? IMHO, golfers expect the occasional serendipity of good shots turning out bad and vice versa, but when it’s repetitive, they object. A few notice and object (question? complain?) about just one instance of it, as evidenced by the Stream Song thread, and they might appropriately be called complainers if they object to every situation.
It seems to me that even if designs attempt to hold shots close to where they land, disproportional punishment still happens often enough (bad luck, sharp bunker edges, poor maintenance or seasonal conditions) without the architect purposely helping matters along. As noted, replacing a sand bunker with a false front/valley of sin is just another type of intended hazard for that part of the green, but I would rarely put one reaching all the way to the center of the green. Similarly, I haven't done it, but a fairway edge that doesn't hold a shot, or funnels it to a collection bunker (for variety, maybe not a steady diet) seems fine.
BTW, regarding Pete Dye, wouldn't you say his lakes lined with strip bunkers to create a two step penalty is proportional punishment thinking? I have heard him comment that strip bunkers are better than scattered bunkers with turf in between, as all shots are treated the same. I have never analyzed it, but wouldn't be surprised if Dye uses the strip bunkers more on long holes than short ones, where laying up is more of an option (of course, 18 TPC proves that guess wrong in at least one case) So, proportionality is not just reward and punishment, but on the next level, reward and punishment relative to shot requirements, etc.
Please note, Tom has admitted a combination of factors came together to create the situation at Stream song 7, and he didn't purposely design it. He also started this thread giving some of his ideas on how to puzzle proportionality out......but posters with no stake in a project seemingly advocate totally random punishment as the soul of golf? That seems a bit over done to me.
Perhaps every architect simply has their own ideas of where to apply it, and where to not apply it. And, of course, nature plays a role. TD is right....it is a puzzle.
As to who gives a crap about the complainers, in the real world (especially remodels) greens committees wanting to avoid midnight phone calls and architects wanting to retain clients do.....But, I do see what your point is. If a guy complains all the time, about every bad shot, blames it on other things, etc., his threshold for rub of the green is probably way less than average, and what is obtainable and you have to drown him out. If twenty reasonable members complain, I begin to think there is something to it.