You are definitely correct to suggest that House's ideas evolve. Among many baseball people, evolution is simply taken as a sign of weakness and fallibility.
Scientists, and some baseball people, view the honest evolution of ideas as an inevitable consequence of ongoing study. When you decide that something is not worth studying anymore, for whatever reason, there can really be no further evolution of your thought in that area....for better or worse, that's just a fact.
Now, the "misplaced" end-points shown for some outstanding players (as though I, or somebody, ought to be embarrassed to even think of changing them...)...well, speaking personally, I wouldn't presume to change them.
Exceptions do sometimes teach us the most--I agree with that. What exceptions teach me is this: If someone with a drag-line that finishes way off of middle/middle is not having any problems with command of the zone...I would try not to be foolish enough to "correct" that guy.
If that guy (with a dragline....) is having problems with east-west command of the strike zone, and if I were his coach, one of the things I would do is start looking for his "best" position on the rubber. And....yes...I would start by adjusting him so that the end of his dragline finished middle/middle to see if that helps him. Another thing I would do, unrelated to this conversation, is look for signs of inordinate east-west head movement in his approach to release point.
What if neither of those things helped? Well....maybe there are other experiments to try...I don't like to give up.
TG2, exceptions should hopefully not teach us to ridicule experimentation and study, as though no phenomena with exceptions could possibly be further understood. In exchange, researchers should not be too quick to etch their theories in stone at the first sign of a pattern or unifying theme.
All this philosophy for some lines in the dirt! Gotta love it!