Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post - I'm in no way doubting the power of CSP. Of all of the places parity is dealt with, it's clear (at least, in my head) that CSP is by far the best place to do it. However, I'm still skeptical in its consistent sub-15 ability in inspection, especially since the biggest payoff, I imagine, would be to guarantee all bad cubeshapes to have no parity (eg, if it's a cubeshape skip, I'd probably just use my 15 seconds to get OBL + figure parity, and solve parity during CPP, rather than doing 6 twists just to deal with parity, and then have relatively little info on how to continue the solve). Plus, I'm imagining that CSP crowds out the ability to really use anything else in inspection, since simply tracing the cycles, without thinking about what that does to the solve other than parity, likely takes a good chunk of time.
To clarify, then, I think there are 2 strong/doable/etc. 3-look Square-1 methods: CSP -> OBL -> PBL and CS+OBL -> CPP -> EP. Of these two, I think the latter is easier, and (very vitally, I think) is easier to transition into a 2-look method - based on my musings above, I think combining CPP with EP into full PBL is easier than combining CSP with OBL recognition. But again, I hope I'm proven wrong, because as I said before, CSP is by far the most interesting and high-potential still-in-development method, to me, even more than PBL (sorry Lid). I'd love to see a day where people can actually realistically 2-look solves in competition, unlike my current ~0.3% ability to do that (a cubeshape case I can predict to OBL, an OBL case I know [aka, not one of the 4 opp/opp cases I don't know], a PBL I know [I know about 10% or so]).
Don't worry - you made your point
