Or, nonsense 
.
lol maybe the iso’s made em dizzy.
@VinPo there’s no reason to be afraid of ‘ntwrksrf’s’ 
Imma put some time into the netwrk and finalize a draft.
I noticed these crvs are degree 7, and only really need to be degree 3 or 5 if you’re one of those deg 5 enthusiasts.
But since the other crvs are deg 3 and netwrksrf likes to only use deg 3, I’ll probably rebuild them to deg 3 prior to ntwrk.
After rebuilding the crvs, I netwrked it then rebuilt the resulting srf. Everthing is within a few tenths of a thousandth of deviation. Finally, I took a shortcut and mergedsrf into 1 srf.
Hence:
Some ppl might be scared of the iso’s.
Here’s a version accurate to a few tenths of a hundredth:
Here’s a subd version based on the initial dense nurbs:
and converted back to nurbs, the iso’s look a lil wiggly:
Question 20240107_emod.3dm (18.4 MB)
Obviously the iso’s can be controlled differently if the design intends. And depending on the netwrk, it can always be reworked to the original geometry etc. It all depends on the goal of 1 single surface constraint, etc. The wiggly iso’s probably mostly came from the subd messin’ aroun’ which could be revised and improved as well.
Also the original netwrk could be analyzed, and improved from the beginning. Depends on the origin of those curves, and the constraints there might be to the origin.
If the desire is to simplify things then the degree 5,7 and/or loft gurus probably want to see very sparse iso’s under the belief that they’re easier to work with, manipulate etc, and thereby also deviate from origin etc.
The rule of ‘single srf’ has it’s pros n’ cons, like anything else. Generally it’s wise to isolate high curvature areas into separate srfs, but it’s always fun making them merged into single srf nets 