Yeah, the idea looks interesting but definitely creates a lot of questions/issues. Possible but why?!? What would you gain?

If you took a boat that was designed to be built in a certain way and arbitrarily built it in a different way, you probably wouldn't gain anything. However if you're designing a boat, and you're constrained by certain build considerations, if you change or reconsider those constraints it might open up possibilities - or it might not.

I design software, not boats, but I know from experience that it's not unusual to mistakenly think of the consequences of design choices as "requirements." For example, if you decide in your design that the hull / deck joint will be made at the sheer line, then your hull shape cannot have any tumblehome (or you won't be able to get the forms out). But "no tumblehome" isn't in and of itself a requirement or constraint, it's a consequence of another design decision.

All design involves tradeoffs. In my opinion, it's important to understand what those trade-offs are - not just what the designer did, but why he or she chose to do it that particular way - because design isn't about finding the "one best way" to do things, it's about maximizing your trade-offs given your particular requirements. So sticking with the tumblehome example - if I see that a designer has specified a build process in such a way that the hull not only does not but cannot have tumblehome, that could mean the designer weighed the options and decided that the merits of the build process outweighed any value that tumblehome might add, or it could be that the designer didn't want any tumblehome in the first place, so it was a non-issue, but if he had wanted tumblehome he might have done things differently.

You can't tell without investigating - and that's all I"m trying to do here, I'm not saying people should do things one way or a different way, I'm asking about the trade-offs that went into that decision.