Yeah, but some make making the decision seem extremely complicated a science to stay in biz, so I doubt you will get an answer here.
Besides, it can be complicated. Most architects will prefer an approach of "every site is different in its climate, micro climate, etc." too. And most of us are forced to for budget reasons. I don't know about TD, but I have built perhaps 20 sets of CA greens, probably as many "modified" USGA greens (which the USGA will tell you are not USGA method) and only a dozen or so pure, full to spec USGA greens.
Mike Hurdzan probably did more than anyone to popularize CA greens, and later flat tiles vs. trenched in 4" drains embedded in gravel. CA greens cost less, to whatever degree 2500-3000 tons of gravel for the 4" pea gravel layer in a USGA green costs. It used to be you could get 1/4" pea gravel for under $20 a ton. Now its double that so using a CA (or any) method that eliminates that saves up to over $100K. USGA research did show that the gravel layer evened out drainage, and may extend green life, but in reality, a tight budget project may have owners who won't be around in 15 years to see consequences, if any. It is often an easy cut, and hard to detect. At the same time, most courses are loath to go pure sand (which is high perc, and works best where water is crappy) so many build CA greens with USGA style sand/peat mix.
I do believe in the sand based green. They were developed because sand doesn't compact (in theory at all, in practice much less than clay or silt) and compaction kills greens. They use more water and fertilizers, but after the 1960's or so those could be replaced via irrigation and ferts while compaction remained a problem. So, sand greens it was and mostly is.