Jeff:
This is a good...perhaps great question and the type that should receive many responses, we'll see?
To me I think there is nothing wrong with challenging the player, especially the better ones with some tough putting surface contours, but I have always believed that defending par was more encompassed within the whole green site and not just the PS, such that you offer. I'll try not to stray too far from your topic.
While the PS should fit the approach shot, the recovery options around it and countless other conditions and choices, strategic and otherwise, I don't think defending par is solely focused on the PS alone. When I think about defending par and explain this concept to clients, I rarely select the PS as the singular feature which has the greatest influence on this concept, but I do talk about how the particular design of the PS works or doesn't work with the whole green site and what I or the original architect was trying to accomplish on a larger scale of strategy and defending par as a complete design approach/philosophy.
I see your point on intuition re: strategy from tee to green, but raise you the idea that the strategy shouldn't end there so the architect should relax and 'ease up' on the golfer--not that that is what you are suggesting
The bold PS's that you refer to, I believe if done well are an extension of the same, if not a bit more focused, strategic thinking the architect is asking the player to consider with every shot they execute. Yes, some are overdone and those are not nearly as successful and probably do become penal and breakdown strategy and weaken the hole.
Personally, I have always liked the tilted PS side to side front to back, back to front and with interesting characteristics within them such as Ross swales and plateaus, or Travis's ridges, mounds and quick grade breaks. They can be very challenging and often still require the player to put their approach shot in the correct location for a good roll at birdie. I also enjoy a more subdued, but thoughtfully designed PS with smaller... random undulations that make reading the surface tricky and then it is hard for the player to know precisely where to leave their approach. The choice isn't as clear and I like the idea of keeping the player on guard.
I am quite certain that if Tom Doak responds (this is the perfect thread for his work) he will have a different take on this. Many of his PS, however, while very bold, always seem to have a deliberate purpose that link the PS to all aspects of playing the hole and playing it well, or the opposite through poor choices made.
Now that I have thought about this more, this is a super thread and hopefully it spurs some lively debate.