"then rediscovery through the lens"
But why not "rediscovery in the darkroom?" For the life of me, I don't understand why all the major creative decisions must be fixed at the point of exposure and exposition in the darkroom -- perhaps far away from the original photographic conception -- is a somehow cheaper creative act. Or a mark of failure, even.
For me, there's discovery in the field, followed by discovery on the
"ground glass," followed by discovery in the darkroom ...and that's what makes the process so interesting from start to finish.
Now, I agree that technique should at least be adequate to make the original visualization transferable to print form. But it usually takes far less than a "perfect" negative to allow for that. AA's book "The Print" details many darkroom tricks that were used to make up for negative failings. No big deal.