It seems the best designers go bold . Thomas Dai made a great point with Royal County Down being one of best courses in spite of the greens but I'm not so sure they don't fit the site . Having only played there once I'm not educated enough to tell if they are lacking . Thomas is surely right about the golf course being great !
If I ever did more my emphasis would be on making sure you built the approaches correctly and really tied them into the green proper . Would really work on that aspect. Nothing more fun than subtle false fronts and bewitching swales and kick plates . Collection areas verboten , totally verboten ! Lol
As to the green itself , go bold or stay home ! Vary the back to front slopes , match the green size to the shot involved and par for the hole. Build them so they drain easily , but don't make them sieves , which at first blush seems appropriate . A bit of a dirty mix isn't the worst idea either!
I would say that you answered your own question very well, but for the "go bold or stay home" comment which probably can't be done well within the confines of your other principles (though for short and wide courses which some here like a lot, it is probably necessary to provide interest and challenge).
I've only played RCD once and it was in extreme wind. If the greens weren't appropriate or sufficiently interesting for the site and long game requirements, I totally missed it. As it was, the ball, once at rest on the greens, was moving all over the place; can't imagine what they would have been like if they had more slope and internal contouring.
Likewise, Bethpage- Black is sometimes criticized for its large greens which lack internal mounds and relies mostly on back to front slope and speed to challenge the short game. I found the course to be a complete examination of all aspects of the game while being highly playable.
In contrast, Winged Foot-West was not only difficult off the tee and on the approaches, the sloped, tightly bunkered green complexes offered no relief. Though I have never heard complaints about WF-W greens being too simple, my host offered to take me to the East course instead where most of his guest preferred playing. After we got done playing, he did all he could not to say "I told you so".
A TX-based architect noted many years ago that greens should be designed (positioned, contoured and sized) in relation to the topography, predominant winds, and length of the hole. A long, difficult par 4 often playing into a prevailing wind might offer a large green opened in the front with minor internal contouring. A reachable par 5 might have either a small green with considerable movement, or a large complex with three or four greens-within-greens separated by swales or other mounds. A short 3 might be good for a volcano green where it works with the surrounds, or one that puts a premium on placing the ball on a relatively small area.
And as important, the maintenance meld must highlight the architecture. A colleague commented yesterday on a tight hole location requiring a shot that would just dribble onto the green to setup a good birdie opportunity. He noted that at our home course, the ball would probably have hit the soft, damp front and stopped short. Not-so-little details like properly draining and irrigating a course make a very lasting impression of the architecture (though it may not have a lot to do with it).