This from Part One of Cornish and Whitten's tome "The Architects of Golf".
"In 1832 the practice began of cutting two cups into each of the common greens, creating eight "double greens" on which two matches, one heading out and the other heading in could be played at once (previously groups heading out and groups heading in had to play against each other down 40 yard wide corridors and had to wait for the group who arrived at the common green first to play to the same cup as the group going the other way, parentheses are mine))......As a public course, in a town devoted to the game, St Andrews had always seen considerable play. The narrow strip of playable grass was only forty yards wide (for groups going both ways), and despite the use of double greens, play had become increasingly CONGESTED and HAZARDOUS (caps mine). Between 1848 and 1850, the course was widened by replacing the closest crops of heather with turf and by expanding the double greens into huge hundred yard wide surfaces. The widened course and huge double greens offered a unique feature: the holes could be played either as the "right hand" course or in reverse as the "left hand" course. During the same period of alteration, a new seventeenth green was also built. And in the first recorded instance of such a practice, some artificially created hazards were added to the Old Course.
An ACCIDENTAL (caps mine) but far-reaching result of the course widening was the introduction of strategy into the game of golf. A player was no longer compelled to carry every hazard. He could, if he preferred, play a longer but safer route around a hazard at some sacrifice but without suffereing undue penalty. Previously, like most links, not only required compulsory carres over most hazards but also penalized, with whins, heather, sandy lies or lost balls, any shot that strayed off line".
Now, Tom MacWood, I don't know where Cornish and Whitten came up with that information contained above but despite the fact you seem to constantly imply that their book and their sources may not be comprehensive enough or accurate and informative enough, is there anything at all about the foregoing that you find inaccurate, incomplete or insufficient? Furthermore, have you or do you feel you can come up with anything to counterpoint or to claim anything they said therein is not the accurate historical case? And if so what is it?
You keep saying you think there might be far more material or information out there that has never been considered or analyzed properly. Well, what is some of that material or information that has not been previously known or considered? Give us something, even if it's miniscule.
Otherwise tell me why you think there is something missing or inaccurate about the foregoing explanation of the dates TOC was widened, altered and the reasons why it was done.