This whole debate is tired. It's been on every forum on the net for years, and before that, probably somewhere else ...
The issue being ... (and point!)
Disclosure value of "Sole Authorship" is not even relevant unless:
1) You are selling the work.
If you are selling the work, then it's the customer who counts. Making this disclosure information available at the time of sale is all you can do to fulfill your obligation to the buyer, relating to their need of it to make a purchase decision. Holding it back, or outright lying if asked is unethical, no matter what techniques you use or combination, thereof.
Like Darrel said, there are new technologies available that should be experimented with to advance the "science of knife making." Just because you can't use them, don't use them, or farm out parts of your work process that you think can be handled better elsewhere, like Jerry said, just stay focused on making knives that people like and want to own.
It seems to me that there are really two debates being confused as one here.
1) Has the Knifemaker's Guild created a problem for itself by relaxing the rules it started out with, pertaining to the conformity of applications and processes considered acceptable, from a "custom" definition by allowing members to use certain techniques and processes under their nose? That being true, is the real debate defining "custom" part of a greater "charter" definition debate going on, relating to the non-conforming actions of recent members? By the way, I know that Edmund Davidson for a fact is one of the greatest advocates today for the KMG to realign itself back to it's own original charter. The quality of his work pretty much separates him from the vast majority of KMG members, anyway.
On this point ... when's the last time the KMG ever sold a knife? Who are their customers and how do they feel? Are they backing the warranty on any of their members knives, assuming a member has one fail following the guidelines they created for "custom" production? I mean, if they are underwriting the warranties on the products being produced, then building within their guidelines should be a requirement. Otherwise, you better cover your own skin and do what you know produces the best result for "you"! If that's CNC, CAD or farming out the heat-treatment, you better do it to produce the "best" product for the customer.
2) Is there some heavy pressure being felt right now because a group of younger, high-tech oriented individual makers have emerged in the last 10 years that are re-defining the wants and needs of the buyer market, producing works that are being gobbled up by the masses, but are produced in ways that are stretching the boundaries of the term "custom" as defined by definitions of old?
It seems to me that the bottom line is to make work/art that can stand up under punishment ... but can sell, primarily. As a matter of business ethics, disclose the material and construction data used in the process and move on. But, regardless of how you make it, or by what method, stand behind it if it fails to deliver the performance you guarantee it will. That's about it ... the rest is in the eye of the beholder ... incidently, your customers!
But, don't go by what I say ... go by what the customer says. However, you better look at all your perceived definitions carefully. Times change ... sometimes while you are watching them. Don't expect the internet to stand still while you consider the points. It won't! That, I can guarantee you!
Alex
