We do this too, and the refs and judges at our last competition were curious. We made a point of explaining it during our notebook interview, and they were impressed and liked the idea, and we ended up winning the design and excellence award, so go figure. I personally don’t see anything wrong with it, as it prevents those pesky little Philips screws from stripping, saves time, but doesn’t give any real performance edge.
Redesign in vex? I wouldn’t put my money on it; it happens very rarely. That being said, it’s amazing when it does. (Cortex V1 to V2 for example was a good one [still need a V3 though])
A) Thank you for providing the link to the original post. As a lead inspector with ten years of VRC inspection experience I would have agreed with your event inspector in every aspect of their decision, including allowing you to compete at a qualifier but not at Provincials with that configuration. Actually, I probably would have been a bit tougher… if you’d had the screws or spares available at the event I would have asked you to “fix” it then, and if not, I’d have asked you to fix it before the next event. But I wouldn’t have kept you off the playing field that day for a minor, and debatable, infraction. Since State/Provincial/Regional Championships have come into place we don’t do as many cross-border events, so I don’t get as much opportunity to compare our rulings with other ones in the VRC world. It’s nice to know we’re on the same page!
B) Thank you for providing the link to Karthik’s response. I’d suggest printing a copy of that and taking it to events with you. Where a Q&A response is critical to interpretation of a rule, it is SO much easier when a team is prepared to provide hard evidence of the Q&A ruling. Although I am slightly surprised by Karthik’s response, I can appreciate his reasoning.
C) Note to teams… if you have any doubt as to what you are doing is legal, and can’t find any definitive answer in the rules, ask the Q&A. Sometimes Q&A is more lenient than experienced inspectors!