in my experience, the consequences of "uncertainty" is to avoid putting bolts in and just running out the pitch into "X" territory, if the route is worth reporting, you've left a "death route."
the FA is open to all sorts of criticism, failed attempts, trashing up the cliff with dead end lines aka "projects," too much runout, too many bolts... on and on.
the alternatives aren't too good either, such as not reporting routes... which might be best if you can take the criticism when you report that that new n-teenth bolt sport climb saw a previous ascent with no bolts... once you get through the incredulity that it had been done, you get criticized for being reckless...
fact is that few climbers put up FAs and the vast majority that don't fancy themselves credible judges of what constitutes a good climb...
I believe it depends upon certain variable such as steepness; a human cannot stand in balance at more than 82 degree angle, what percentage of the route requires bolts, the skill level the leader and the type of route desired. In the final analysis, does the end justify the means?
Personally I would rather do a route where bolts are in the correct location as apposed to how the bolts are placed. After all subsequent assents don't give a damn how the bolts were placed. There is a fine line between boldness and stupidity as there is between prudence and cowardice.
When sport climbing is the aim, rappel bolting is the game. The other variables being whether power drills are permitted and the quality of the rock.