Brad,
Crap, there goes my ratings in the next GW......
I understand you put a lot of brainpower into that to make it as relevant as you could, adopted the panel system, and then tried to learn from the flaws you saw in GD. I like a lot about your system. Still, as an independent observer, who considers both you and Ron as friends, many areas still overlap:
GW conditions = GD conditioning
GW Variety and Memorability = GD Design Variety and Memorability
(you have par 3, 4, and 5 subsections, GD splits the two into different general categories)
We could argue that GW Walk in the Park (as much as I like it) = GD Ambiance
GW - Trees and landscaping (although not a perfect fit) = GD Aesthetics.
No clear correlation for their resistance to scoring (IMHO, leftover legacy from America's Toughest, which seems dated) or GW "Land Plan" which is a bit vague to me. I have been to one education session for each magazine, and understand you have slightly different approaches to educating raters, too. No doubt the emphasis is slightly different.
Overall, my impression remains you want to get to about the same place, perhaps taking a different train.....but then, I am not as personally or emotionally involved as many here seem to be. Obviously, I am changing no ones mind here! That said, I am of the overall impression that those who don't like the GD system as much can keep piling on well beyond what is probably deserved.
BTW, I do know there is a single digit handicap requirement. I have had several friends ask me to approach Ron with an endorsement for his panel, and he has thrown most out for too high a handicap. Wonder if he would take me, with double digit handicap, but more knowledge about architecture than the average bear? Not sure how firm that system is, but again, seems to reinforce what seems to be the main difference, which is resistance to scoring.
Cheers.