I would say definitely not.
Indeed. And if the bottom is indeed that straighforward, surely the best thing to do is to just go back and make good?
So if he goes back and does it, does it still count as "ground up"?
He won’t have ground upped ‘the young’ because he has already climbed the top via an alternate route. He has already practiced those moves so he can’t do the route ground up.
Ground-up has never been a standard to aspire to, it's what you default to after the onsight has failed.
Going back to the Great Western/ Western Front example, I don't see why not. What would invalidate it is falling off Great Western then getting back on by top-roping up Western Front.
Ground-up has never been a standard to aspire to, it's what you default to after the onsight has failed. Done badly I think it's a fair argument that a swift headpoint might be better style, but (I'd argue) of a lesser challenge.
If he goes back he will have improved in the style in which the route has previously been climbed. There will still be improvements to be made (on-sight, no chalk etc. etc.) but for me the most impressive but of any such ascent will always be commuting to those top moves not knowing what's up there and Franco has done that to a certain extent (no idea how much beta he had). Ethical improvements in how routes are climbed are often minor rather than a great leap forward and I think Franco has made a minor step forward, so fair play to him. The rest is just a semantics.