Adam, I agree. Most of us have habits, including architects and shapers, and avoiding human repetition is key to emulating infinitely randomness in nature. In truth though, I think many if not must humans actually respond best to shaping that is somewhat naturalistic, but also has a bit more order than nature, so sometimes it works out.
In more practical terms, I study those who shape everywhere to see what works best. I do recall even Pete Dye fell victim to repetition. I asked one of his workers who though the reason some of their early fairway shaping was regular was because they used to place catch basins after every 4th stick of drain pipe, or about 80 foot on center. I thought the result was noticeably repetitive.
Probably the best shaping architects are Fazio and maybe Dana Fry. What I notice about their shaping is that long ridges start well outside the fairway and tail off 1/3, 1/2 or even 2/3 across the fairway. And never perpendicular to the line of play or with it, always at angles. The worst shaping (IMHO, and I have been guilty of it) is where the architect is clearly working to the fairway lines and the fairway is flattish at about 2-3% and the mounds are 20-33%, with little transition.
It reminds me of something Dick Nugent taught us (making the shaping at Harbor Side a bit hard to figure out) is to (back in the pure pencil on paper days) grade with the green shape, fairway edge, etc. but put those shapes on one layer and trace the contours on another. Then, take out the edge layer and grade again, focusing mostly on the art of the contour lines without regard to shape. Always comes out better.
Also, it pays to mimic nature, and the tops of mounds ought to be similar to nature, maybe double. In other words, in say, Iowa on land where you might see a 10% slope max, (Yes, I know, not all Iowa is flat like that) the skyline of any grading should be not more than 20%, etc. Going from flat to 25% doesn't come close to look natural.
As to fairways, I never forget the time I was instructed to grade fairways at 4-6%, because the terrible quality irrigation water burned turf if it didn't drain fast enough. I liked it a lot more than the standard 2-3% typically used in fairways. And, golfers would say it was strategic. No shot is ever the same if you play off gently rolling lies from slightly different positions every day. At the greater slopes, the lie must be factored into how you hit the shot.
So, someone would have to define what undulation for undulations sake is for me.....
As to greens, I can see it. In one sense. they do serve a very limited function of receiving shots and generally allowing a two putt. So, given these restrictions and a general limit on size, its easier to argue on most designs to limit the excess undulations.
Most of us know the basic rules of how to achieve that, and some would argue that adding "random contours" or steeper than cuppable slopes just for looks or challenge is undulation for undulations sake, and the super would argue that you should keep the green size to the minimum required to keep his budgets reasonable.