Here is my "take"....
With the recent understanding of the game-planning feature, I really feel that many of the original conclusions I had on the offensive scheme were wrong (the gameplanning features were leading to mis-understood results). It seemed logical at the time based on the understanding we had. But, like any other scientific exercise, there are sometimes variables you are not aware of and when you realize it is there, you are forced to re-evaluate your findings and form/test a new hypothesis.
So, my new hypothesis is this....the schemes do what they imply (west coast is west coast, balanced is balanced, etc.). The listing of schemes I posted are based on my "feel" and knowledge of the teams and their personnel. My one "touch" is that I am cutting out the use of the vertical scheme for the CPU. Those vertical and shot plays can be rather problematic as it can lead to way too many sacks. My gut says that the power run might be problematic due to overuse of PA passes, but I have NO data to support that.....just a gut feeling.
If I am correct, with the gameplans set to "red zone offense/defense", we have arguably controlled that variable and can now do a bit more in-depth assessment of the various schemes....