Grasshopper evaluation of parametric modeling norms

dear Rhino Grasshopper community,

attached here is my grasshopper definition that originally attaches via Firefly to a physical model plane with micro- sensors that detect bending - so that when you bend the physical model the digital one follows.

here is an image of the entire interface:

(in this grasshopper definition attached i have left out the Firefly/microsensor interface and so the model is just controlled by the sliders.)

i am looking for a short evaluation of this grasshopper definition and the questions are:

  1. is the construction logic of this parametric definition- which first constructs a polyline, then explodes it in parts, then uses these parts to control its movement, fairly typical in parametric design? it at all unusual to use parametric modeling to create individual one-off object manipulations (like in this definition) rather than to use parametric modeling to make more pattern-like structures, i.e. multiple arrayed geometries and then create variations within these?

  1. in this model a Mesh plane is being ‘bent’ so that parts bend independently. i found it incredibly tricky to ‘bend’ a Mesh and you will see here I had to use a ‘pull point’ since, unlike a Surface it seems Meshes don’t like to bend. have you found this to be true or does anyone have a better trick/ knowledge how to bend (rather than pull point) a Mesh?

I look forward to your throughs and I thank you all in advance for you help and information here! (52.5 KB)