To what extent do you think Cammas is interested in the LAC in its own right versus as a development feeder into a presumed mini-AC72 class in AC35? A speculative question I realise, but I was expecting AC34 teams to rest more on C-class as a development tool than they seem to have done. Mine is entirely an outsiders view however.
Since Steve's not interested in replying, I'll comment fwiw. Indeed:
The C is a chance to put together a full design/build/test team.
(C-cats for the AC is a bit far-fetched, though). Meaning you cannot really scale up results, but main disciplines are the same.
What I realized in my contacts with the Challenge Italia team is that things have changed from "my" time, where you had essentially a single, charismatic designer (Rod Macalpine-Downie, Lindsay Cunningham, Dave Hubbard; Steve Clark and Steve Killing being the latest examples). Nowadays, "even" a C-cat sees a multi-disciplinary team comprising hull specialist, FE modeler, composite structural, aerodynamicist, hydrodynamicist - and of course CFD! (I share your opinion that CFD far from validation points is essentially GIGO). And these are invariably young, bright engineers perfectly adept in the latest, impressively powerful software.
Now, I know I'm not objective when I feel that this is all very well, but it's sort of anonymous, lacking the depth and the inventiveness that I've been fortunate in witnessing in the past.
The other interpretation, unfortunately, is that today there's such an oversupply of young talent that any juicy project gets crowded ..
Be it as it may, this provides an answer to your second question: C-cat old-timers are not in tune with the "modern" (and AC) mentality/methodology.