What Dunn was discussing was a very specific set of circumstances and not a general concept. It was about how to handle a scene where the luminance range was greater than normal. He presented a number of approaches. Dunn’s argument for not reducing the development of the negative was that it compresses the tonal values too much causing the print to appear dull. He proposed normal development of the negative even for greater than normal luminance ranges.
This left a couple of options to control the higher negative density range printing when printing on a normal grade of paper. One was to use printing techniques such as burning, dodging, and masking. The other was to print for the highlights and midtones at the expense of the shadows. “…it is in such cases almost invariably at the expense of the shadows, especially when the latter are small.”
Personally, I use all three methods. While I agree that smaller areas can be printed without concern for detail, the question is always how small? It all depends on the intent of the photograph. Documentary and photojournalism are more concerned about the moment than detail in the shadows. With large format landscape photography, tone reproduction plays a greater role.
Then there is the creative intent. The parameters in the psychophysical judging that lead to the definition of an excellent print for tone reproduction theory was for the image to produce in the viewers mind the impression of how closely it portrays the original scene. This means that print quality is based on the literal impression of a scene. If a photographer decides to deviate for creative reasons from this, it is no longer applicable to apply those concepts in judging the quality of the print. As the psychophysical determination of print quality is the basis for film speed, this also applies to the concept of “correct” or appropriate film speed and exposure.
There is also the complex concept of the two aspects of tone reproduction: objective and subjective tone reproduction.
But where Dunn and I disagree is that I want the shadow detail on the negative to give me a choice to use it or not, where as Dunn feels that if it isn’t going to be used, “there is no point at all in exposing the negative for the shadows and thus forcing the required highlights far up into the very dense part of the negative characteristic.”
I’m not sure why the reference to page 10 as it is just an explanation of the basic concepts of exposure theory. You should check out Appendix B for a more detail explanation.
Don't let the examples of the affects of flare on the film curve fool you. Combining the film curve and the affects of flare on the same curve is more for convenience and can be conceptually misleading as to how flare works. Flare doesn't change the shape of the film curve. It just changes where the exposure will fall on the curve.