Near the bottom, but that would usually be the case for a 230-yard par-3. Golfers have no stomach for tough green contours if they have successfully hit a very long approach shot.
Yes, the paradox (and general rule) of proportionality. Hard approach, easier putt as a reward. You do follow design formulas! 
Not really, I just understand them. But I don't build very many long par-3's because so many people insist they have to be boring.
Cross pollinating the Whitten thread again, but it reminds me that when I worked golf maintenance, a golfer and my boss both insisted no public golfer wanted a par 3 over 200 yards. Yeah, a challenge, but not a fun one, and not the breather hole most golfers want a par 3 to be. So, at least from the middle tees, I never designed one over 180 yards, and even that seems long to most players, so 170 is a good max for them.
Around 1994, one of my better designs narrowly missed being on the GD (recently expanded) top ten new upscale public course list. Not quite relevant, but it had made top 3 on the affordable public list, but when GD called to tell them the good news, they said they were going to raise rates from $45 to $75 the next day, and GD changed their category, where they failed to place.
Ron used to send out raters comments, and one that struck me was how many raters downgraded the course because of "similar length par 3 holes." Length variety was a criteria, either for them or within the system, but mostly because most raters are low handicap players, I guess. Or, just as those who tally up variety of wind directions for all par 3 and also par 5 holes, it was a rating thing. Predictably, I started stretching out one par 3 to 260 yards back tee, down to 130 yards, preferably on the same nine and a few holes apart to stress just how different those two par three holes were. And, some people did notice. Over the last ten years, perhaps spurred on by moving to the senior golfer class, I have started going back to the all par 3 holes being easily reached mantra. Of course, the gca mantra got to be that the long par 3 is the only way left to challenge long iron play by top players, so they became more acceptable, (as long as the mid tee was still around 170, rather than a proportional distance reduction, LOL)
But yes, most sort of mentally calculate that if they hit a great shot to reach a 225 yard green, the putt ought to be fairly easy as a reward, or an architectural technique to make par extremely likely or at least possible after a good shot. We lament it, but par matters to most golfers, and it is very frustrating to them to not make par after a good shot. And, where is the strategy of hitting a great shot just to find wild contours require another great one to possibly avoid bogey?
If nothing else, CP 16 probably proves that average golfers really hate long par 3 holes, carries at the limit of their ability (not much room to add forward tees there!) but will certainly accept it if there are other benefits, like stunning beauty. And, as a few examples here show, Mac said that man's attempts to emulate nature always seem "puny." He had to be thinking of an inland pond par 3 hole vs. CP 16 when he wrote that, IMHO.