I agree, my point in a nutshell, its marketing bull to make ones work look more complicated than it really is.
I can't claim to even begin to understand all that notation. Not that I'm capable of judging any printer's technique.
Given that my monitor is not going to show subtle tones, I don't see many of the differences in gradation which the selective manipulation indicated would give, such as in the sky. It seems like the main difference is the final print is lighter. I actually like the more somber look of the first marked-up print if it were made a bit lighter overall, with just a little more lightening up in a few places. It would appear from the the intentions conveyed by the notes that there would have to be significant masking of straight lines.
I'm wondering if these notes are a plan or just a record of what was done.
I can envision a professional darkroom technician, working for a major photographic consortium, having to (or being taught by mentors how to) use markup such as was illustrated - so that additional prints could be made by other printers.
Working for myself, I make sketches on my notes. But they are very rough - generally a few dodge/burn notes (that I would know anyway if I reprinted the negative). I re-read my notes later to see what I used for f/stop and enlarger height - the notes are reliably useful for that. I get it that some printers don't need notes, or ignore them if they make them. Most of the time I am printing a new negative anyway, so the notes don't help in that case.
When we try to expose and develop negatives for the perfect printable negative, it's not because we expect to be able to print without controls. It's just to improve the statistical possibility that any one negative won't be really hard to print. It's just a plain good habit.
Most of my negatives do not require such heroic measures as the sketches show. But then none of my prints has hit the heart and soul of the public. I hope if it happens, that the particular negative is easy to print. Otherwise, I will farm out the work to Bob Carnie.
But I imagine things are different when the negative you have to print has ALREADY hit the big time. Then you HAVE to work with the negative you've got. Chances are it's a bear to print, because the wonderful photographer who took the photograph... Was most likely NOT as capable a technician as you. I am speaking statistically, not with any one photographer in mind... A photographer who takes an amazing photograph is statistically likely to possess less technical ability than the typical APUG correspondent.
My point is that I think it's practically a given that a "Lottery Winner" will require complex dodging and burning. I think the drawings are real.
Then - like you wait for 40C, I wait for about 400K Ohms. Literally meaningless, but if the numbers stay in a range ~390K - 500K Ohms, then the work for that session will be "within tolerance". But this doesn't give me more than, say, 1/3 stop exposure control. Which, if that makes or breaks a print of mine... then there are going to be some that are better than others in the final stack...
I make and use printing maps. They save some initial steps from being duplicated, but mine are recorded in f/stops to be more flexible to equipment and material changes.