Matt,
I don't get your point. I write that his current work (TPC San Antonio) "doesn't look as if Pete is in the same mode as he was back in the TPC Jacksonville days" and you lambast me by pointing out that "his work today doesn't resemble what he did a year or 30 years ago." Why the anger when we agree?
For the record, I have played too many Dye courses to count and have had the pleasure of talking to both Pete and Alice on over two dozen occaisions on their design philosophies, often at depth, including the idea of not penalizing the average player. In one funny instance, I got a nice lesson on that from Alice, and pointed out that they put a very deep fw bunker about 50 yards out from their ladies tee, which seems a little counter productive to her emphasis on forward tees. In another, I played Prestwick with Pete specifically to learn from him what features he was looking at, because he said the straight creek/burn on 18 was what got him started on the straight lines vs gentle curves of RTJ.
To answer your second question, I tend to agree with Tom Doak. There was a period when his courses had many predictable features. When I popped open the photos of his San Antonio course, I thought to myself, "it doesn't look like Pete Dye" a sign that he at one time was getting predictable, and is now changing, almost, as he tells me, for the sake of change. Things like long strip bunkers were once almost universally a staple of the Pete Dye "brand." Most owners probably wanted him to build them their version of TPC Jacksonville, and he is just recently being asked to produce something more original.
But, like JN and some other top designers who made their name with tough courses, it seems he realized just how hard his courses were for the average guy and is changing his style to something softer. I suspect it also has something to do with him slowing down and letting associates and sons do more of the work in many cases.
Have I been out enough for someone who has yet studied his courses enough to comment?