Coming into the tournament, I think Bryson understood something important, and not only analytically but also deep in his bones: ie that the golf course didn't have to be -- for him -- what anyone else intended or wanted it to be. He could see it exactly the way he himself wanted to see it, even if no one else saw it that same way. He realized at a fundamental level that neither the architect-design, nor the superintendent-maintenance practices, nor the set up men-USGA goals could stand in the way of his freedom, unless he himself gave them that power and gave away his freedom. And he didn't do that; he honoured his freedom and kept true to his own inner vision on how to best play the course -- and then he went out and did it. Yes, as others have noted, the entire rest of the field shot the usual US Open score, on a prototypical US Open course. But maybe that's exactly what's different this time, and new: ie the winner was the one who simply didn't believe in a 'typical US Open' course, or let himself feel constrained or impinged upon by the 'usual US Open score'; for BC, they didn't have any meaning at all, and thus no impact either. What's new, perhaps, is the victory of subjective belief over the (so-called) objective realities.
All just sheer speculation, of course -- but if it's true that sure might change architecture moving forward!