Oh yes... I can see the slope is pretty steep!
However, my use case is quite common and even if all the dimensions unassociated or disappeared, I would be happy if only the drawing "setup" remained for the most part, even if aliased for the moment. Drawings handle aliassing pretty well*.
My use case is when you have a part file fully detailed and some yahoo decided they want to add an OEM hardware widget. Now you have the same drawing but it is an assembly. Of course, I am going to have the same parameters to fill the tables, and I even have the same base part from which the dimensions can be shown (that might be asking a bit much)... Even the view orientations can be "frozen" to the default CSYS or use the datum references if the name doesn't exist. If you reoriented the assembly in relation to the part, well, duh, it will reorient the view... but if you did your due diligence to make sure the names coinsided (only the general views need to match), then this should be a pretty simple process of eliminations. It can require the user to redefine any view related issues after the fact.
I have been caught in this dilema more than once. There really should be a consideration for this. I have gone so far as to make single part assemblies just to get ahead of the game. A sheetmetal part where someone desides they want to add a single Pem fastener, for instance. Do you realize just how much work that one "little" change can mean?
The rename trick is not going to work in this use case since the extention changes from .prt to .asm.
* ...at the moment in instances such as changing the orientation of the master view, allowing you to fix the dependent views and eventually everything falls back into line.
