Normally, I wouldn't suggest doing a build in 84 hp like this, but that would be for full-on systems. This fits better in the "mission specific" build category, though. Let's see here...
(time passes, then...)
Damn, I feel like I owe you a consulting fee or something. This is great and very comprehensive.
A couple of quick notes/questions:
Originally, I had placed the two mic pre modules on opposite sides of the rack for the purposes of capturing more of a stereo effect. For example, if two people were playing acoustic guitars on either side of the unit simultaneously, you would have greater stereo separation between the two sides assuming you didn't comingle the signals later in the signal path. I may be making too big of a deal of that, after all they are only a couple feet apart, if that. But if you can imagine two condensor mics protruding up from the system, capturing some difference in the signals is somewhat of a priority.
Rather than using the mixer you chose, would I be better off using 2 of the little 2hp mixers from my orignal build to maintain more control over each signal on the left and right of the stereo signal? I'm assuming there are better and worse mixers, too. This is the mixer I'm referring to using as a pair: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/2hp-mix
On the topic of mults...and this may be obvious, but I want to ensure I understand. I send the original signal into the mult, switch off the second mult to give me 6 outputs and then send to:
Input on Env follower
Input on twist
Input on Lubadh
Input on Beads
Input on FX Aid
And send one signal to the aether...
And the envelope follower takes that income signal to create the gate, trigger, and env...I'm not sure I understand how that works as someone new to modular, though it does feel a bit more 'organic' than using a Pamela's.
Originally, as I thought this up and did a million iterations of a build until I settled on this concept, I didn't imagine it as parallel processing, rather, something that sequentially processed a signal. My worry was always that it might create results that were too similar. I do like that with this way of doing things I maintain a dry signal signal and processed signals without having to undo all my patching to hear the dry signal.
Again, a big thanks for the input.