Jeff:
That's a good article to throw into the debate.
I will throw in one other point: the question of whether any artist is meant to be taken at his exact meaning. I like to see the musings of Rick Rubin from time to time, and his thought is clear that once a piece of art is finished and in the public domain, it's out there. Other people will take it for what they want, and assign meaning to it based on their own interest [and in this case, their own golf game]. And just like the course will change over time, how it's interpreted will change, too.
Perhaps some architects DO mean for their course to give precise rewards to players of a certain ability. But it is impossible for them to control this across the wide spectrum of golfers. It is always assumed that most courses are designed for the best golfers of the day [whether that means 1-handicaps or +6 handicaps depends on one's view], but I don't believe that is necessarily the case . . . anyway, it is not the case for my own designs.
The only thing I really know for sure is that if someone changes one of my courses thirty years from now, they will probably not be interpreting me correctly. I believe a good design will stand the test of time, even as circumstances change. Certainly, it will yield lower scores, but it will still provide examination and exhilaration in proper measure, and it shouldn't have to be changed to do so.