Doc brings up a good point. Should we change our hearing procedure at events that use Vakaros (or similar)? I think yes. 

The question is at which point of the hearing should the evidence from the device be introduced? Should the PC ask after the validity portion: 'do you have the Vacaros track available and ready to present' at this point?
Could it replace the evidence presented verbally (and boat models) by both parties, therefore eliminating the “you tell what you saw” from both parties? Maybe. 
Have both boats tracks reviewed first and then, if any portion(s) of it is not to the satisfaction of the PC, have the parties add any ‘clarifying details’ by allowing each to ask questions of each other and include witnesses (cannot exclude them) and the PC as well. 

Some of it will then make it longer than desired, but if it is not clear, you are going into a longer hearing anyway.

Benefit: if the tracks give enough evidence to produce FF, then you have the15 minute hearing and dinner.

This will require additional equipment in the hearing room. TV with Internet access would be good to have; connecting video cables, etc. The OA will need to start thinking about this kind of evidence and provide the equipment. To have 5 Judges surrounding a 5” Apple/Android screen is hardly a proper way to judge evidence to produce FF. And we all do it, at times. (Different topic: should the Judges refuse to review an incident on less than the 12 “ screen, per Judges Manual?)

Experience with Vakaros. At relatively recent Westen Hemi and Asia Champs and Nationals, the Vakaros evidence was helpful in two instances and made the hearings relatively short.

At a pre-World Champs regatta, a boat during a hearing dismissed the PC’s request to see the track with: ‘it only an orange line going thru the bay’ and never produced it. The PC had an experienced Judge on the panel that was familiar with the app and it could have expedited the hearing. 

Thanks very much John. I appreciate your efforts in replying in so much detail.

Our annual program includes a Pointscore Series (Pursuit format; scratch -> biased towards slower boats) run every fortnight ( 15 races per season), Championship (Yardsticks; 2 races each day; 14 per season) and Sprints (Yardstick, 3-5 races per day; 24 say races per season) => run in turn every other week.  (so C-P-S-P each month).
 
We'll be running our annual October Regatta (6 Divisions) , Hobie States, Spiral Nationals + the International Canoe World Titles this year so we'll be busy, and having lots of fun and enjoyable times out on the Bay!

As Race Secretary I want to apply a common entrant list and a common set of rules for our club races. (KISS).  We are transitioning from a Cox-Sprague system to low-point (Sailres) next season. We have a meeting next week to decide on the rules.

After much research and simulations and yours, and others kind feedback, my preferred approach is DNC= Starters+4. I thinks the committee could settle on DNC = [12] which is starters + 4 for our average fleet size of 8-10. There is a group who want to keep the regatta approach of Entrants + 1.
 
We'll see who 'wins' the debate. Interesting Times (pun intended)! 

Cheers and Thanks again for all the great feedback. 
PS many clubs face similar issues and so it is worth discussing it here.

Looks like several scoring systems allow for it.  You will find the instructions for how to do it on RacingRulesOfSailing.org here.

This may be relevant =>>>   https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5752-minutes-advantage-formula-for-pursuit-races-based-on-phpf-hcp

Yup, Case 67 settles this explicitly in a W/L collision causing damage to a non-racing boat, it does not explicitly deal with the amount of damage caused being a conflict since in this case the rule 69 implications removes that discission.  I can't find a case where monetary damages were seen as a conflict of interest in the way it's implied in this discussion.  But the definitions are poor for several things including "damage" vs "major damage", and major damage isn't even a requirement, only that it may have caused major damage. so there is always room for interpretation.