However the exchange has served the useful purpose of illuminating that
you
seem unable to offer any evidence to support your personal beliefs.

No, Jim, the exchange has once again shown that you seem unable to show
any constructive support or understanding of the empirical creative
process, how it takes place, its essential features and the
personalities of creatives. Building a new project - the OP's purpose
in posting - is a creative act, and falls within the usual stages and
parameters of creative acts. I would direct you to any study of the
creative process, such as the four stage model of preparation,
incubation, inspiration and completion, which will do for starters. The
OP is at the stage of preparation, and probably the first stages of
inspiration, though I would expect that this is a fairly dormant stage
where a large variety of ideas are assembled and mulled over. The
materials used at this stage may (or may not in many cases) include but
will not be restricted to theoretical data and statistical analysis.
Personality wise, the driving force in this early stage will be
curiosity, and many ideas will be worked on, most being rejected at
some point during the empirical testing stage. It is essential that any
ideas are considered on their own merits, and not on the say-so of
others or past historical usage, since the purpose is innovation and
the selection of ideas is radical rather than conservative. The
selection of ideas in the creative process will almost by definition be
made by the creative himself or herself, otherwise it would not be a
creative process. So the usefullness of moralistic directions do do
"this" or "that" because one "should" will be of little final
consequence, though such practical information will be useful in the
stage of prototyping and testing.
In terms of the personalities of creatives, we should expect
difficulties with the establishment and in particular conflict with
"teachers" or similar figures (Getzels and Jackson 1962), independence
of ideas, stubborness, tolerance of ambiguity and absurdity,
symbolistic linking of ideas and divergent thinking (though convergent
thinking is important to the integreation of ideas in the final
stages), competitiveness, abundant imagination, and of course
non-conformity. This is not an a-la-carte list - you get the creative,
warts and all. No doubt the champage socialists of this world would
prefer a Van Gogh on the wall of their salle de sejour rather than in
the kitchen drinking pastis and cutting his ear off, but that's
creatives for you.

In that way, I think it has made a useful point which the OP and others
can take
into account if they so choose.

Yes, you do like to support your moral standpoint on things with sly
references that 'other people will find I'm right and you are wrong'
don't you. I usually note this has been slipped in at some point. I
think that in reality you will have no more or less interest shown in
your own particular views than the interest shown in any apparatchik
who has historically stood in the way of dissidents. While the
apparatchiks - believing themselves on safe ground - built all the dams
and power stations, the dissidents advanced the culture and took risks
with new ideas. Fair enough, but imagine a world where the apparatchiks
were put in charge of new ideas.