Seems to me that there are two major philosophies going on in the comments you have collected so far.
One is an "18th c. workman-like ethic". The other is “finest fit and finish”.
The “workman-like ethic” guys try to keep the old masters and antiques in mind as they build. Most old guns show evidence of quick and confident workmanship. They include little “mistakes” and tool marks—stuff like file marks left on the inside of a trigger guard, off-center screw slots, screw slots that were not timed (not lined up), scraper marks left in some spots, a few hammer marks left in a forged barrel, and slightly off-centered tang bolts heads, as well. For some guys, these little details are charming. They show the humanity of the old masters. (Instead of just seeing the art, the tool marks can kind of let you see past the art, to see the artist there as well.)
Some of the “highest level of fit and finish” guys see those same little “mistakes” as an indication of sloppy, hurried craftsmanship. They set a goal for themselves of pushing beyond what the old masters could produce. They hope to build a perfect gun with no details that anyone might fault—maybe even a gun with no tool marks visible to the naked eye.
It’s not completely a dichotomy. It’s more like a spectrum. A lot of us are in between. And a lot of us start on one end of the spectrum and slowly migrate to the other.
But the two extremes are different goals. Both are fine, but they are very different, and the contrast is a source of debate on here again and again. So I guess what I'm saying is that you might want to take a minute and evaluate which school of thought you like the best. Your very slightly off-center tang bolt would not be out of place on a 18th c. rifle.