"A "triangulated system" whether at 45 degrees or some other less critical angle, will hold rigid and stiff extremely well...Unfortunately they also tend to fail "catastrophically" when they do finally give way to an over loaded critical scenario. They tend to come down fast and very hard, once the load capacity of the frame has been max capacity, often completely blowing apart the timber frame of which they formed...In in a region like Japan...especially areas with daily earthquakes found in some range...a forced evolution of timber framing took place over millenia that would allow the frames to become able to "slowly fail"...and/or "rack" in severe situation while not collapsing completely...while sacrificial members (like nuki) where slowly crushed...This also allowed frames to be more effectively salvaged and/or simply un-racked and "stiffened by the placement of key "wedges" and new lighter timber members...such as the Nuki..."

Well, the fact I have parallel vertical posts in close proximity to each other suggests that style of jointing may be desirable (specifically for my top plate and/or floor joists which could theoretically pass through both 'layers' of wall posts). Is a slot like that vs. a partial mortise better suited to thicker timbers, though? My only concern is I'd be boxing myself into using fatter sticks than really needed.

While a system like you've described can be more flexible, when it does come time for it to load up, it is inherently less efficient than a cross brace, for the simple fact the crushing/binding/etc is occurring right at the brace point where the lever arm is tiny. Also, as you mention, for loads applied more locally to the structure than seismic ones (i.e. a wind gust) a more rigid structure will handle it better without disruption, and triangular braces are ideal for maintaining shapes under load with minimal material. Definitely two different schools of thought, but I'm not convinced they are mutually exclusive; perhaps a system of cross braces that only operate in tension or compression (but not both) in concert with flexible braces would yield a system which is quite rigid in normal conditions for the size of its timbers, but still possesses a sort of 'fall back' progressive failure system in enough of its structure for the brace members to fail without immediately ending the structure overall. No reason for the building to be flexible except when its life is at stake, right?

I suppose some built in flex with 'tunable' bracing might make a raising go smoother as far as fitting of the walls to each other; any thoughts on that? Maybe 'loose' cross braces that are either wedged or drawn with trunnels to stiffen things up after being squared? The tensioning elements alone would hold things until the structure deflects enough to load the joinery.

I also wonder if the flexibility only really needs to be present at the ground floor or only at the upper floor (depending on whether seismic or wind loading is the issue). Probably getting into really complicated dynamics issues if we think too hard about this, with no easy one-size answers. Being a two-floor system, does the progressive-failure character of these joints still hold? Simply because the two stories of a timber frame don't seem to ever be joined nearly as strongly as the bents making up the walls (i.e. in a severe racking situation, the upper floor would simply pop some mortises tying it to the plate & fall off)

"As you so rightfully noted further...in regions like Hokkaido...you will see both the oblique systems (often in the horizontal format like Hiuchibari of in the roof or sill/plate orientation) and the "Nuki systems" working in concert with one another..."
Hmm, this sort of goes back to my thoughts on whether/where one design format is advantageous over the other. The flat/horizontal frames that make up floors/roofs aren't really subjected to the type of resonant torsion loads that buckle vertical columns, since the foundation kind of insulates the structure against vertical-axis shear for the most part (squeezing a rectangular floorplan into a parallelogram). That type of load would always be accompanied by a general twisting of the vertical structure about its axis, neatly racking all those nuki joints more or less equally (dissipating what little shear load would be resisted by the diagonal braces). Well, unless the actual fault slips under your foundation, anyway (good luck with that)

So I suppose the lesson might be to use rigid joints where you expect the least movement (vertical-axis shear) and allow for more flexibility elsewhere. I guess that's sort of self-evident; make the roof super rigid & structural (as Asian roofs typically are, if I am not mistaken) but let it 'float' on a self-centering pedestal.

One thing I do notice on the Swiss/Germanic buildings, is they seem to be more vertical in general, with more floors and greater height. Obviously the fault lines have much to do with this, but I also imagine you'd have a hard time getting flexible joints to deal with a three-story structure (harkening back to my stupid youth, I climbed an ancient and lighting-blasted forest-ranger tower ~40ft tall which was constructed of riveted flat steel bar; I've never ever been on something so wobbly in even a mild wind, but I'm told they were always that way & actually can survive high winds & tornadoes better with moderate damage). For whatever reason, I'm thinking that the tallest structures in classic Japan tended to be inns/tenements, which were quite tall (relatively speaking); what styles might they have tended toward?

"Where to begin, of which culture and what language???"
Sorry, I was referring to Spanish forms, specifically, at least as far as how they may differ from Swiss/Germanic while still emphasizing material efficiency. I'm afraid I won't quite be willing to learn a whole new language (in a technical field, no less) in order to build a house! --I can ask for the bathroom or a glass of OJ in Espana, but not whether you run a trunnel through the gusset vs a scrivet into the mucket (those last two were actual words from my automotive maintenance manual) and more importantly, whether you'll kill yourself doing one over the other, lol!

TCB