Matt, the only problem I have with your analysis is that you seem to take the 'master of the universe' approach in that one's highest credibility factor in analysing golf courses is to experience them all. That is fine for the fellow that has unlimitted resources and can extoll the glories of the life of the intrepid golfer, rater, commentarian. And, that is some darn good criteria and depth of experience to rely upon. But, there are some very sharp and savvy people out there that comment on GCA that don't get to see them all, so to speak, that actually build or design them or seriously participate in that activity, and see things you miss, IMHO. I'm not going to name them, because this isn't a personality contest. But, there are some very likely suspects most regulars here on GCA know who I mean. Both you and they have claim to as much authority and credibility to evaluate, regardless of the courses played count, I believe.
I also think that the intrepid life on the road of GCA evaluation might tend to have a "drive-by rating" syndrome where a one time play, and move on to another course the same day or next, for a series of many, might lead to too high of an impact on first impressionism, not really seeing enough of what is there. Subtlety can hardly reveal itself on one go- around. Thus, on a one-time-one-play evaluation where one pronounces superior, a certain course that has many excellent qualities to another course with many excellent qualities is a fine line to walk, IMHO.
One can always say that if one did not play all the courses named by you above as being better than WH, then one doesn't have credibility or standing to make pronouncements. I for one always try to not make the pronouncement that something I have played is better than something I haven't, within obvious rational bounds of similar categories of quality design. Yet, I haven't played some courses that I have seen photos of, and have absolutely no reservations of saying some particularly mediocre course is not up to WH's standards on various counts. Some things are just obvious.
But, in the context we are speaking of, I personally have seen some courses you have seen and have commented on. Usually I see your points on them and generally agree. But, I do also see that we come at evaluating from slightly differing tastes and criteria, mostly related to playing ability, what I interpret as your higher priority for a green with little mystery or unexpected results on the approach, and for some reason, I think distance may be higher on your list.
I remember your praise of Lost Canyons, and after playing it, didn't find it quite as praise worthy as you did, not just because it was angularly difficult with little forgiveness in several areas where decent tee shots simply ran out of room, but because it was a bit of architorture off tees that I simply wouldn't want to play very often at all. (desire to return over and over is right at the top of my list of criteria). The cart rides would get boring, the greens were not that interesting, and the angles had a sameness about them. But, at least we evalute them as we see them. You have a bigger microphone, and do a good job with it.