You are correct. It is MOST important to make sure that the configuration/boat code reported to US Sailing is accurate.

The distinct Blade F16, G-Cat F16 and Taipan F16 PNs are in the table to "ease the RCs job in identifying boats" and are regulated to follow the 2-up F16 generic rating (also you could alter these boats and sail in Open class using the modifiers). I was told the Portsmouth Committee had an internal process to group all of these ratings together and calculate the F16 handicap as a whole, minus the F16U rating. Compare the generic F18 PN to the Hobie Tiger, Nacra F18, Capricorn F18, etc. - their system seems to work in this regard.

The omission of the F16U rating in this grouping of "F16 configurations" is what led the class to request it being dropped from the tables.

Your statement:

"I don't know precisely the internal workings of the PN process, but my guess is that if we're not careful and the results are reported to the PN committee as just Blade F16, that would do nothing to improve the accuracy of the F16-1 number."

could not be more true - the accuracy and speed at which the PNs change hinge on the fact that the boat codes are reported accurately. It is our responsibility, as a class, to make sure the reporting is accurate.

Truthfully, I am not sure how we monitor this - especially since most RCs are going to submit the times as whatever you registered as. Rectifying the reporting creates a lot of hassle for everyone involved. The common thinking is: "why would you register as something you are not?"