Some of those greens for example are so simple looking yet so complex you just can't imagine how good they are without playing them many times many different ways.
Good point in general by the man from Lehigh!
Mark you are correct, some people need to actually play courses multiple times to pick up and understand greens properly. Some greens are more subtle than others, but some raters read and evaluate greens and complexes better than others.
Royce Brook West is a good example. I hear so much concentration on whether or not the bunkers are too much, overdone, blah, blah, blah. How many have really seen how good those green complexes are, have looked at the greens from a perspective other than today's pin placement, what putt you had, what approach you had into that pin, blah, blah, blah.
Yet another variation of the famous "California Effect".
And Patrick, spawn of the current question
Each rater has to be honest with himself as to whether his last evaluation (Or set of evaluations) accurately represent the course as it currently exists. (My BIG question mark of the purported continued "greatness" of that little course in Georgia-independent of its own version of "TCE", complete with trademarked music!
)