"if the nature of one level renders the level above it ambiguous then then ambiguous level should be eliminated not left blank"
I leave it blank for my exports to my other genealogy software so that it gets inserted where it should over there. In my other software, I leave the fields blank. It's not possible to eliminate them. Even if I could, I'm not sure that I would. It seems sloppy to disregard jurisdictions.
"However, census records and tax roles are very acurate so these can be used to hint at the actual location"
I agree that I could use other sources to interpret this location, but my question here is how others are dealing with these situations following the introduction of the new hierarchy feature to the Places workspace. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer in my original posting.
"Saying Hatchville, WI, USA is probably enough for an accurate "jurisdictional" place, since IF the county was jurisdictionally important the information would have been recorded."
Well, it was written in an obituary for a person that isn't important enough for me to research in more detail. I'm content to leave it as "Hatchville, , , Wisconsin, USA". I'm just annoyed that this is one of a huge number of my place names that cannot be accommodated by the new place hierarchy.