I don't mind a little back and forth, but I think you are missing the tone of what I was going for.
My primer is really like a supplemental to the other AG instructions we have all read. I was making the assumption that a reader knew the all grain process very well, but didn't know what they could do to get their process more repeatable. Telling me that keeping portions of your day "hands-on" results in inconsistency is completely off base. I thought I made a real effort to show that by learning which brew processes need a hands-on approach, you will hit your mash rests, volume levels, and gravities dead-on every time. I was not talking about "reasonably close" , or "pretty accurate"; I was talking dead-on. If that didn't come across, then I failed. In fact, I opened the intro talking about how people who are happy with "reasonably close" will see my approach as overkill - but for those who want to make the same recipe twice, it may be valuable.
I think "daunting" was actually a good descriptor, because it was my goal to start to spell out all the little tweaks you need to make to learn your system - and that is a daunting task. AG brewing is not hard, but getting your wort-production to that 10th level of consistency is very hard. It took you three batches - it took me about three years (and I am still learning).
Please take a few minutes and re-read my thoughts about nailing rest temperatures and the neccessity of exacting volume measurements throughout the brew day. You will notice that my instructions are really not a "how-to", they are a "how-to-think-3-steps-ahead". You will clearly see that I use the formulas and instructions you like so much, but I also explain how to use them in conjunction with your own set-up (in this case - my set-up). I really wanted brewers to think about the ways I learned to protect myself from potential issues (ie: infusing from cooler->hotter, knowing the exact constraints of your tun ahead of time, and overcompensating on sparge water and cutting off collection at your own discretion) and think about how those protections could be implemented to improve the predictability of their own results.
If things have been working great for you; awesome. I am not asking those with previous success to change their ways - I wouldn't want you to. On the other hand, if someone is finding difficulty with conducting a consistent brewday, "you must be using the software wrong" is not a very helpful answer.
So please, if you care to continue the discussion, carefully read again and let me know if you still disagree with my thoughts. If you still don't see how a bit of well placed hands-on control can get your consistency to the next level, then I am cool with dropping the issue.
Joe