Good stuff. Awesome of you to make it downloadable!
You make very good points, and it's a very good question.
Considering the movies that have won in the past years, I'm pretty convinced that a lot of the voting in the editing category is nearly random, more based on how flashy or noteworthy it is than anything else.
So, a list of "best films" can't include more than one film from a director and has to include all of the "greats"? That makes no sense.
I disagree with Matt, I think it's very good. Looks great, and it's very well paced. "Sharp images detracts suspense"? What does that mean?
Excellent piece, informative and thought-provoking. If it's a taste of things to expect from the new writers, I'm all in.
The best results should come from doing it in the final render, but that's not always the best way to go. I'd say it depends on your specific work.
I usually do it just like Guy described, transcoding the 4K original files to 1080p Cineform or ProRes and working on a 1080p timeline, so I can actually see what I'm doing when I'm editing. With a better computer, maybe using 4K ProRes files in a 4K timeline would be doable, I don't know - in my 2014 MacBook Pro, it doesn't work very well. Like Guy said, it's always possible to go back to the original files if there's need to reframe or stabilize one or two shots.
Another option would be to work with low resolution proxies, and then relink the original files for rendering. Depends on how important it is for your specific work to actually be able to see the details of the image during the editing and grading, I guess. Then again, this method saves a lot of space, in comparison to the other one.
Truth is, the difference between the methods you described will be visually minimal (if you work with good solid codecs, like Cineform or ProRes 422), so it's more of a matter of choosing the workflow that fits best your specific work.