I don't understand, Dan. As you stated, it is "marginally better", then, why don't you accept the method?
I fully agree with you that partner check (or buddy system - sounds like more American?
is essential, whatever knot or tying method you use (so do I!). However that does not put the tying method irrelevant.
I believe anything that reduces a risk, even if marginally (unless it is an awful lot more troublesome or time-consuming), helps make the bet of survival (or safety) in favour of you in climbing.
My attitude indeed saved my life more than once in my climbing career (though not this tying method, fortunately - I am not keen to test it!).
The tying method to the harness is one of those that reduce a risk, if marginally, then I regard it as relatively important.
Indeed I have once spotted an instructor tying to only the leg loops, because he threads from the bottom and because probably he was absent-minded or distracted while tying in. The latter is of course a more serious problem and we should avoid it by all means, but we all know that can happen one odd day. Then, when there is a better method that may improve the situation, why don't you use it?
I also note it could have been worse - there is a non-negligible chance of threading a rope via a small webbing to keep the rope in the centre of leg-loops (which definitely would not cope with even the body weight, except for ultra-overmade and well-thought Metolius SafeTech harness). It can happen whether you thread the rope from the top or bottom. However, if you thread from the bottom and if it happens and if you forget to thread the rope to the waist belt, the consequence is equivalent to not tying a rope to the harness at all!
In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:
> Actually, I don't agree. I think it's more important to tie in correctly, and check that you have done so (by using the buddy system) than to suggest people use a method which makes things marginally better if they mess things up.