Yes, I think notes are the only objects that are forced to be the same in score & part, which is a shame. I find several instances when I need different enharmonic spelling between score & part and have to give the part priority for ease of sight-reading, regardless that it looks bad in the score. Notes need to be spelt melodically in the part and harmonically in the score.
I can sort of see that individual lines exploded from a chord-based arrangement - particularly if writing in short score - might benefit from re-spelling. But I'm having trouble visualising an example. Can you show us something, Adrian?
Changing note spelling would probably not be a Great Idea in traditionally written works (with transposing score), because it can lead to misunderstandings between conductor and player (Conductor: "Clarinet, in bar 39 on your D-sharp…" Clarinet: "I don't have a D-sharp, what are you talking about?" followed by subsequent confusion until someone determines that the conductor's D-sharp is an E-flat in the clarinet part.)
Obviously, this does not apply to C-scores. But C-scores are for wimps.
You prefer augmented intervals to double flats then? ;-)
I learned very early in my studies to avoid augmented intervals in vocal writing and it has always made sense to me, not only for singers but instrumentalist too. One exception may be the pick-up measure into "What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life".
Well, when it IS an augmented interval... And you might be asking me to solo over the Norwegians in the next chorus... Aren't we all pretty used to reading the first sort of thing?
But yes, we should be able to do this in Parts if we want to.