Interesting discussion. I do have to add that I have used the 1/3 rule of thumb for landscapes and so on with good results. I have never used it for any other type of photography. Anything depending on hyperfocal for focus is not critical anyway. Measured focus and dof tables will be better for critical work.
There are, generally speaking, 2 types of photographers. One type is interested more in taking pictures, while the other is more interested in the intellectual pursuit of photography. By that I mean, one tends to be more Edward Weston, while the other is more Ansel Adams. Both can create great work, but one is process based, while the other relies more on intuition and feel.
That said, Weston was strictly a rule of thumb guy who often flew by the seat of his pants when shooting and when developing. The Ansel Adams and Minor White crowd were much more technically savvy and had more consistency in exposures. One has to remember that Develop By Inspection was still a viable option back then... especially for the seat of your pants crowd.
Annie Leibowitz is also from the 'feel' crowd.
The 1/3 rule is not mathematically accurate, but for landscapes and with small apertures, it is good enough. It does create a bias to the foreground, but perhaps this was intentional, as an element of composition....a somewhat sharper foreground is desirable in landscapes.
Quite frankly, I consider myself a seat of the pants type more than an N -1 type, although I know both well enough.
I think the rule is easy to remember, and like horseshoes and explosives, does not have to right on target for it to be effective within acceptable limits.
David