I think David, that much of this is perhaps a perspective on a very subjective continuum. Scanning back through every point made by each of us has its validity either in a give situation or from a given perspective.

When discussing "new work" it is vastly different in my mind and ethos from that of heritage conservation, restoration, or reconstruction. Here I tend to be a very "hard liner" following a strict ethic as set down by the likes of the Burra Convention, where "like for like" in means, methods, and materials" is a cardinal mandate of any heritage work, with regard to architecture/artifact restoration/reconstruction. Conservation efforts are different in the since that elements of modernity are often employ, even though all efforts are suppose to be made that these be reversible.

I think the concept of placing scarfs in multiple location in "vintage material" may have some merit as the necrotic elements of a vintage frame are all that typically requires the repare, so by that nature could/would be in multiple local. Brent's dictates are different than what would be reflected in a heritage Dutch Barn. Thus far the material logistic that Brent faces may be more of a challenge and constrictive.

Material do often dictate design and for this reason we see the fast range of different timber framing modalities between regions and cultures whether it is a Japanese Minka, Indian Kath Kuni, or some Pacific North West Tribal timber structure. Material and method dictum's are the norm in my view of this craft. Kind'a like the old adage the Amish I learn this craft from would say...

"...we plow with the horse we have...not the one we wish we had..."