Patrick,
Your "theoretical" exercise is just the kind of thing that, if you had even a remote understanding of the history or fundamentals of design (do you think reading will hurt you in some way), you might just realize how such theoretic exercises lead to the kinds of changes that you would now like to see reversed at Garden City, and which I fear for places like National or Riviera when people start trying to address the ball or their own design fantasies or what the course down the street is doing.
But most of all, you have shown us what I feared to be the case with this exercise and your "restoration" theories. Your view of moving the tenth hole bunkers would be a restoration to you, even though they would be moved to a location they never existed in before? So you feel they would be restored to what you deem to be a proper place based on your view of today's game? Or is it based on your game? Either way, sounds to me like it's all about you, not about what's found in the ground
Good restoration is about finding what's in the ground, dusting it off and bringing it back, not about golfers great self-importance and satisfying their theories about what if we did this, and what if we moved this here. The less successful projects are those where someone puts themselves ahead of what existed before as seen in photos, etc...
Trent did it with the 12th at Garden City and you hate it, but you still don't see the differentiation between sound restoration and narcissistic renovation. I am saying and you are too busy throwing out questions to notice, that you are going to have a tough (impossible?) time making the case for pure restoration because of this inconsistency, which is a shame considering the well-intentioned effort you are making to see the old 12th brought back.
Geoff