KNEEL,
You've mistaken what I was trying to get across in my posts.
The dimensions of a particular bike or a particular tool placement is interesting, but ultimately little more than a curiosity. While what you did for the young carpenters might have been well meaning it only lets them use that particular set of tools. If, however, you were to explain the logic behind the tool placement then this same thought process could be used to set up a lathe work area, a garage or possibly an entire manufacturing plant. Does it take more time to convey, yes, but it can be time well spent.
In terms of the bike that I've drawn up, some of the individual measurements I arrived at seemed 'off' to me. That's why I'm here. Saying, "556mm front centre is bad" is an interesting comment, especially coming from someone with such a strong background. It does not impart any of the thought process of why that may be true or that it takes to design a frame. Keep in mind, when I say design, I don't mean to apply a variety of 'rule of thumb' principles. I mean to make conscious choices and compromises on each critical dimension to arrive at an end product which has the traits you set as targets. These two approaches are not the same even if they produce the exact same end product.
I'm fortunate in that I have been professionally fit to a bike. My fit dimensions are pretty much a known quanity, so an online calculator is not going to be a substitute for the work I've done with my coach. The only possible unknown on fit is head tube height, seeing as my coach feels my present bike puts my hands in too high of a position. Yes, you can always bend your arms more, but by bending your arms too much, you give away some power and you fatigue quicker. Now the Strawberry website is pretty cool, thanks for the nudge in that direction, I'll spend some time there. Having said that, it also has an A, B, C, <a miracle occurs here>, Z feel to it.
I have no idea if what I'm trying to get across here is getting any traction at all, so let me try this a different way.
Accepting that a bike design has to fit a rider in a physiological sense, what are the other primary considerations of frame design and what are the compromises to be made with respect to those considerations?