SGP already has code to deal with mount imperfections that should be resolved by the mount. When you tell the mount to go to a particular RA/Dec value and it misses - that is because the mount is not doing its job exactly right. It is a mount problem - and it can indeed be fixed by spending a ton on a high end mount.
But SGP wants good results with equipment at low price - so it uses an elegant approach to get around this problem - by doing a plate solve and sync'ing so that the subsequent slew will hit the target exactly. But even that doesn't work right away - so they have a loop and error tolerance and all this elaborate code - as a workaround to try to get good results despite imperfect mount behavior. That is all in the spirit of combining smart software with imperfect hardware to get optimal results. I fully support that attitude - though clearly Chris does not. He would object even to the need for any of the existing centering code.
Not only does this centering code exist for the purpose - but it turns out the sync/slew is not as elegant as thought - because mounts sync differently and some should not be sync'd at all.
And for my mount - it doesn't work well for other reasons - and as a result I cannot use the centering process due to its limited accuracy.
The alternate way I suggest doing the centering is no more complex than the one that already exists. It is a few lines of code - to replace a few lines of code that are already there. And it avoids a problematic and intrusive sync of the mount - that isn't needed in the first place. In my case it allows a non high-end mount to center with arc-second accuracy - through a smart combination of plate solves and code. It's cool when smart software can make mid-range equipment give high end results - and I support cool.
Frank