If there is a real dividing line between archies that look at their work from day one as something complete and unalterable and something that must fight evolution and those that look at the work as an ongoing and never ending evolution, then I think it lies in the archie's design firm character and demonstrated branding philosophy.
I get the sense that the big top firms, Jack, Faz, Jones etc., particularly design within the framework of a turn key and perfect on day one creation with heavy emphasis on the marketing of R.E., and big membership subscriptions, etc. In that mindset, I think they 'might' tend to look at the day one project as a complete work that nothing need be done because it is so intricate, complex in design and beutified ancillary to golf features.
I think there are other archies with like minded developers that know the course will evolve. They may plan on an opening day and years of evolution, as noted above, starting with a more minimalist field of play that will naturally be added to as the track matures, and nuances are found.
Heck, wasn't that course in Philly somewhere designed by that amatuer and his committee of that exact understanding and mindset of getting the bones of the course open, then add to it as the game, play and usage evolves?
I favor the modest, backbone of the course construction with the goal of adding efficiently and wisely as time goes on. If the stucture of ground contours, drainage, and routing are sound, most any adjustments that are suggested by evolution of terrain or game or B&I tech will be positive. If the structure is bad, the whole thing caves in relative to quality, as time goes by because too many bad ideas, or complicated structures need fixing.