I find the older I get, and the more knowledge I accumulate, I find myself overthinking things I never gave a second thought to years ago. ... just my view (after nearly 60 years of engine rebuilding)
My view after also nearly 60 years of engine rebuilding is a bit different. There's a rule of thumb that's relevant to this, that says we typically can't perceive differences in various phenomena that are less than ~10%. If you drive two automobiles that are otherwise identical, but one has 8% more h.p. you won't be able to discern that, or differentiate between the brightness of two otherwise identical headlamps, one of which is 8% bright than the other.
As a motorcycle example, fifty years ago I could adjust a carburetor so that a bike would run fine. However, recently I assembled an onboard data logging system for air fuel ratio (AFR). A year ago I used it to modify a 1036 Concentric from the two-stroke configuration all of their bodies were made with, to four-stroke for use on a Gold Star.
I can't feel the difference in performance of having tuned the carburetor with this data logging system, so does that mean I'm overthinking things? I would say, no, because the data doesn't lie. There is a measurable difference. But, someone else might say, yes, I'm overthinking things because the performance "feels" the same with a carburetor tuned the old fashioned way.
Vincent didn't "need" torque plates, or torque wrenches, or digital voltmeters, or ... when they built these machines back then and they ran "just fine," but does that mean we can't do better if we use these tools now? No, I don't think so. Personally, I prefer to use the knowledge I've accumulated to improve how I build and tune motorcycles, even though they certainly would be "good enough" if I only had the knowledge I had a half-century ago.