I'll just get the way back machine warmed up, Sherman get ready.
The first frames had material so poorly sawn, out of square edges, sawn thick to thin, sides plus or minus 5/8, there was no way to expect any consistantcy. So everything was first laid out to the exterior surface and then to interior center line. My partners and myself were all new to tf and so we had a number of control theories at the same time. But we were looking for steady clean joinery into faces that were not normal to bent or post line. So I tried to measure, record and compensate for variations. Pieces were cut long to allow for trim and scribe. At trial fit up, a lot of scribe and trim. Braces scribed and half lap half dovetail. Rafters were scribed off the deck. The aspect I did not like the most is the repetitive handling through bent line scribe, then post line scribe and then fitting in both directions. Anyhow our rookie making it up as we went was a model of confusion, but we got through it, three guys in the woods without a crane.
After two jobs, we fired the sawyer and lost one partner. Third house frame was a crane raising that went smoothly, we had better control and better material and more refined layout, still mapping and fitting, up to about 1995-96, when the cumulative effect of Guild workshops and class finally made inroads into my whole approach. So my critique of mapping has everything to do with me and my process and is not to be regarded as more general or specific comment on others work.
However, I find high bias and theorizing in your comments, David, that are just very far off the mark. Housings are not a definitive nor unique aspect of historical square rule. I have seen many historical square rule frames without any housings at all. I find gains that are well scaled to be graceful, flowing and even organic when performed with a shapely touch. Taking a housing out of the receiving member does not necessarily mean that the housed member is critically weakened. It is my view, that a housed beam is a much better supported beam with wide and even force distribution than a loaded tenon with a progressively distributed load.
So I ask you to try to think differently about gains. Considered the word ungainly meaning ugly, clumsy and unfit. Consider gainly meaning attractive, balanced and ready. If the carpenter is working with gainliness in mind then cutting gains becomes a matter of enhancement and preparation and not a matter of reduction and loss.
