The Frames clone is just perfect. This gives you eight VCAs, four audio-specific, and the other four to shuttle between linear and exponential duties as needed. Lots of nice modulation there, the Morpheus is a killer fit...damn, this is looking like a serious piece of circuitry! I think you're awfully close to a stop-point here; the only things at this point would be up to you, if there's something else you think has GOT to go in there. As for me, I don't see any potential major alterations...alongside your other stuff mentioned above, this is a boxful of raw power. I'd still go with the Minibrute 2s versus the Dreadboxes, though...mucho patchpoints, has the weird Brute VCOs, the yowling Steiner filter...yeah. I definitely see that, add the Keystep, screeching halt. Perfect.
Buchla...yes, very influential. I've used a very large 200/300 hybrid system way in the past and while the sound is...my gawd, it's that frickin' SOUND...it is more than a bit confusing to patch if you're not used to how Don started doing things with the 200 series, separating control and audio signals nearly totally. I've not had an opportunity to work with a 100, though, and that might be a happier experience given that you don't have to separate those signal paths; it's a lot more like Eurorack, with 3.5mms, everything connects (in theory) to everything. Another telling point about the difference between Moog and Buchla: the very first time I encountered a Moog system, waaaay back when, I couldn't get it to do diddly-squat. But the first time with the 200/300 (granted, that was later on), I had that thing emitting sonic havoc in pretty short order. Which is kind of funny...the Moog LOOKS simpler, but there's a lot of hidden ill engineering behavior there, whereas the Buchla was designed by a bunch of acidheads and could theoretically be worked even when the patch panels seemed to be melting! Ergo, it's actually a bit 'friendlier', especially the 100 Series according to a few people I knew who used one themselves.
As for them being 'outliers'...that was by design. Moog wanted something that was AN INSTRUMENT, by god...where Buchla was working with the San Francisco Tape Music Center's experimental music community firsthand in the early-mid 1960s, and there was more of an idea to replicate 'classic studio' techniques electronically with the first devices. As such, there wasn't an aim to make it 'traditional' in any way, while Moog was actually aiming his systems at a more orthodox clientele. I think it says it all in that Moog debuted his earliest system at an AES show, whereas Buchla's first big public outing was for one of the Merry Pranksters' 'Acid Test' events.