In the system described the post-processing has simply been fixed based on some arbitrary values, but is still essential to produce a useful photograph. The negative is the unedited state, and you are still processing albeit with as little personal involvement as possible.
I don't disagree, but please re-read that post of mine you quote in its entirety if possible, as well as the original post I was replying to. Whether there is, or there is not, a "gold standard", e.i. "authentic" positive representation of a negative is perhaps an academic concept, is of little interest to me, and it's not what I was talking about.
One thing I'd like to comment on is your 'arbitrary' value bit. There is nothing "arbitrary" about inverting a negative, unless we let some scanner software do it for us. Scanning is not, or should not be, some magic "black box". Automatic post processing can be defeated. Digital files containing nothing else apart from digitised, quantised representations of the scanner sensor's readout can be easily produced. Any residual variability (different scanner sensor, slight difference in raw file output) are probably present, but their impact on the output is probably so small as to be neglectable. This means that a fixed testing environment can be achieved.
In such a controlled environment we can fix as many known confounding variables as possible related to the workflow. E.g. same scanner, same linear inversion routine, same number of bits per pixel per channel employed for the digitalisation+quantisation, same standard non linearity applied to the inverted signal (e.g. a standard Monitor gamma correction). When we do this, the impact of film, exposure and developer on the inverted black and white image becomes important, reproducible and has a strong impact on the image.
This leads to the (perhaps, to some) counterintuitive idea that the negative can, if we wish, be already both the "score" and a very large portion of the "performance" (minus of course minor necessary processing one might perform on the inverted image, such as cropping, adjusting the global black point and removing dust spots).
It's a matter of creative choice and there is no "fallacy" involved in seeking creative fulfilment in film photography by doing away, again if we wish, with extensive darkroom or Photoshop work if we don't enjoy it, and by shifting control to exposure, film properties, development properties to achieve our goal.
It is absolutely NOT necessary to toil in a darkroom for hours with a print, or toil in front of a computer for hours in front of a scan, to achieve one's "vision" unless one wishes to do so, and unless one finds this sort of post processing steps (whether wet or dry) enjoyable.
Just because some great or not so great "fine art" photographers of the past told us we must dodge, burn, endlessly play with paper, toning chemicals or vignetting or sepia effects to "finalise" a picture doesn't mean that's the "right" or "proper" way to do things. Though this sort of work is of course endlessly enjoyable for many and I wouldn't dream of saying that "making an image in a darkroom is a fallacy".
Bottom line, we are amateur photographers enjoying a pretty complex creative workflow with several variables worth tweaking: I'd recommend tweaking those you prefer, those that give you enjoyment and leave the prescriptive arguments or the gatekeeping to the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures or to Aristotelian Scholars (" Ipse Dixit! Therefore, it must be true!").
