This is a cool topic... in my opinion I use mostly option 2. And I say Mostly, because on the width point of view of the box, for example, consider in P 15 the central stall turn with 1 1/4 roll up and 3/4 roll down. It would be geometrically impossible to make the following half reverse cuban eight using option 1 as the radius of exit of the stall turn would leave you already too late to start the reverse cuban eight.

Now going through P 15 anf F 15 over your drawings, and keeping the analysis width-based makes me think that if i have been subconciously flying option 2, then my central cuban eight with 2 / 4 pt roll and oppositye 1/2 rolls after the knife edge humpty is ending up very big. There is room to make it smaller. It seems to me like its a smaller maneouver that what i am making.

Now talking about height of the box, another point is, that if for example in option 2 we have a top line of 110 m, it would be impossible to make what we call the "astronaut maneouvers". the 4 pt figure 9 in P 15, or the 4 pt figure nine with integrated roll on top 180° on F 15.

I would encourage you to extend your interesting work on seeing how would it look in this same scheme for exaple the figure 9s in P 15 and F 15, the Vertical 8 on F 15, the vertical hourglass on P 15, and even the last two maneouvers of F 15: the humpty bump with oposite 1/2 rolls and full roll down, and the stall turn with 6 / 8 pt roll un the way up and 1 3/4 snap on the way down, which are in my case, very tall maneuvers.

Anybody has their 2 ct to share?