I've come around to the line of thinking that cut-throughs and spit-outs are not basket flaws, but putting flaws. If the target doesn't catch your putt, your throw, while accurate, wasn't accurate enough (not unlike a ball golf putt that lips out of the cup...either the speed or the line was just inaccurate enough to not fall in). That holds true for the patent-pending Mach1 all the way through the Mach X and similar.
The problem is that with every target model, the weak points (where the cut-throughs and spit-outs are generated) are different. Different enough that someone who plays primarily on one type of target develops putting technique to master that target and opens himself up to being "victimized" by the weak points in other models. But rather than recognize that a putt on a particular trajectory will stay in target A 100% of the time but not 100% of the time on target B and adjusting the trajectory accordingly, we assign blame to the target design or sheer dumb luck instead of the thrower.
If we had a uniform target...one set of specifications that all manufacturers had to follow to the letter...things would be different. Whatever weak points it had in its design could be accounted for with putting technique...speed, pitch, angle, etc. So I think we either embrace the variable targets in our sport AND their supposed flaws/weaknesses, or we get rid of them entirely and go with one universal design. Since the paste is out of the tube on varying design and choosing the universal design is likely to be impossible due to the various options already out there, I'm in the embrace and even expand the variability camp.