It's easy to consider additional criteria when we are thinking about improved outcomes and design methods. We keep the higher standards at arms length and keep them in perspective. Dave Lee's recognition of my "vetting our use of ID models" reflects this frame of mind.
Yet when we are immersed in designing instruction, added criteria pose a threat. Rather than use them, we feel abused by them. They interfere with getting our design finalized and produced. They complicate the design issues when we are trying to converge on a reasonable combination of trade-offs. They usually set us up to be more critical of our design efforts, rather than more appreciative and satisfied. Added criteria can even tempt us to become perfectionistic, never satisfied and never able to complete the project.
There are three ways to use added criteria when we are not getting abused by them. The first use generates new design solutions that satisfy these additional criteria. The second use complicates our critique of previous designs and holds them to higher standards. The third use is to become perfectly overwhelmed by "too much to think about".
When our local minds are overloaded, we don't know what to think, where to go from here or how our design will ever become finalized. This not-knowing is a perfect state of mind to receive inspirations, intutions and insights. The design solutions that dawn on our minds when we don't know how to apply our expertise -- are better than anything we could think up confidently. Then these added criteria get used to appreciate these new, inspired design solutions. The criteria provide new ways to say "yes", "thanks" or "more please!" as innovative solutions dawn on our "beginner's mind".