Mark P, Not just related but strongly inter-related, surely?
Well, yes and no. I may be wrong, but from your post and example, you may be overly clinging to the "challenge the bunker to get an open roll up to the green" school of design.
As we have seen, shot pattern, blocking out one side, and curving the ball back to the target is probably what to design for today for players good enough to really think about strategy, or at least to expect its rewards. Creating the most possible width for the shot to land safely is the mantra now, and yes, that still means playing to the extreme edge of a fw, but there are many ways the second shot can present a better challenge than an open front green (which to be fair, you aren't probably disputing.)
For example, Pete Dye took to guarding the inside corner of the dogleg and the inside corner of the green on long par 4 holes, to make them play a smidge longer if you played safe, and largely discounted any angle improvement.
It's not that I have never put holes in other conditions, but for my money, the carry a fw bunker to get an open front to the green works best on fairly consistently downwind holes where the tailing wind 1) makes it more tempting to carry the angled bunker, and 2) on the approach, reduces spin on the approach shot to where having a little room to run the shot out may really be necessary.
And, in a strong and reasonably consistent cross wind situation, I tend to bunker the downwind side twice to accommodate the DECADE shot golfers want to play (and I did this decades before DECADE!) BTW, as Mac said, bunkers aren't really to punish, they are to encourage the golfer to hit various shots.
So, inside fw bunker and outside greenside bunker isn't the only way to go. Once you set up a tee shot, you might have any number of approach shot concepts.
To those who mention taking the driver out of the hands of better players, I ask why? They want to hit drivers as much as anyone else, so why make golf less fun for them? I once wrote it seems like an analogy to tax the wealthy to minimize the differences between classes. I guess I want to allow the better players to reap success from their talent.
After thinking about it more, I still think the best way to create that temptation and risk/reward in the time of DECADE golf is to create playing corridors just under the maximum width recommended by Fawcette. What's a few yards of width to the confident and less disciplined player? He recommends 68 yards or just over 200 feet wide. Maybe make the tree to tree corridor from 60-65 yards wide, or about 90-95% (with some variation on each hole as the land dictates) It forces them to aim outside the actual play corridor to attain it. As it happens, a 3 row sprinkler system adequately covers just about 200 feet of width.
I can see perhaps narrower if the landing zone has an upslope facing the fade (or draw on alternate holes) to stop it sooner, and perhaps a bit more if it rolls out against them. Or, put one subtle gathering slope in there that runs the ball off the fw that they might not notice, so they have to hit the controlled cut a specific distance rather than bang away.
BTW, the Broadie stats and others do show a dip in approach shot accuracy from the rough. Just as we are surprised that Rahm's approach shots averaged just 31 feet from the hole (and he was the winner!) I think we would be surprised at how much different the rough makes. He says that for pros, an extra 20 yards is worth 0.75 strokes per round, or 3 over 4 rounds, enough to make a difference. He also measured strokes lost per degree of angle off center, and it came out to 0.75 strokes per degree of miss, i.e., 4 degrees off line (about the pro average) costs the same 3 strokes per round.
For tour pros, at a 140 yard approach shot, the number of strokes to hole out is 2.91 from the fw, 3.15 from the rough, and 3.22 from a fw sand bunker. Yes, fw sand bunkers are less of a nuisance than they used to be, but they aren't obsolete. Wherever they become more penal, pros will probably just consider them like the tree line or native areas and calculate that into their 68 yard window.
As always, just my random thoughts on an interesting subject.