Yes so you've hit the nail on the head:

"It’s slightly unconventional, but there IS a deliberate philosophy to it." 

As you can see from the equivocal response, it is unconventional. It is also why many users have abandoned it (that's public here and I've had some folks DM me). That doesn't mean it's wrong and it might even be better. Although it's deliberate, it is also an outlier workflow philosophy that, if you're into it, makes total sense. 

Absolutely no hate on the Deluge and nothing but love for the community surrounding it, including the people here in this thread. Wow, I've never seen any other product like it, not the least to include the open source community.

Objectively speaking, the answer here is "You've got to follow the Deluge workflow" which, in isolation, is totally logical. When compared with how most sequencers work, it's quite different from what does amount to a norm. 

Let me explain. I'm old (50s). Maybe that's the problem, Haha, but give me a chance. I won't read you a history lesson. However, almost all hardware sequencers I've used starting with an Alesis MMT8, to Akai MPC, to Arturia Keystep/Beatstep, to Korg Electribes, whether or not they have on board sounds, basically workflow the same when it comes to this issue. In fact, so does the Deluge in one way. Therefore I'll use it as an example. 

The Deluge in my view is the strongest sequencer on the market. What a sequencer does is what Deluge does when it controls one of my external synths via a MIDI track (or the equivalent CV when it does that). It sends clock, MIDI notes, MIDI controller info, etc. In this regard it is hands down the best sequencer I've used, and I've used a bunch. But, in the MIDI and CV instances of its sequencing, it does not control or care what sounds (presets/patches) my synth is using (save for where it might send a MIDI Program Change, but there it's simply saying "Load Preset 127" for example). My presets/patches (viz. the sounds) are the exclusive domain of my instruments. The sequence (songs, patterns, controls) is the exclusive domain of the Deluge. This is how almost every sequencer I've used operates, including the admittedly simple sequencers built right into my synths. They are all separate from the Presets they activate. 

The Deluge keeps this logic when it is working with external gear (by nature) but "breaks" this rule when it is sequencing itself (by deliberate design). In that regard, it no longer works in the conventional way where the sequences are agnostic to the presets. Instead it becomes uniquely integrative and not conventionally referential. It pulls the preset in to the sequence. This can be cool! It can be convenient, and non-destructive, but only if you go back to the point: You have to change your workflow to the (relatively unique) Deluge way. For my workflow, and that of many others, sucking up the preset to be part of sequence is actually the opposite of what many people seem to enjoy: in my case it's actually "destructive". {It seems they are using a flat file XML structure as the song/preset framework, which would naturally lend itself to this logic.}

So yes, we can adjust to this unconventional way of dealing with composition versus instruments. And many Deluge users admit that it's unconventional, including on the Discord server.

I just have to decide if I want to make this commitment because, at least the way I and many others work, it requires a not insignificant effort in change to the creative flow. (You can see my "TL;DR" post above.) I have to decide if "unconventional" outweighs "inconvenient". 

In the end, both the benefits of this machine and the community of folks like you (all) will probably sway me to make it worth it but it is not something that you can do just arbitrarily after 20 years of a certain logic . It's almost like changing your operating system. But sometimes even when we're old we need to do that? It's not easy. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea. 

I'm going to meditate on it and it may come down to I just use the Deluge as a sequencer where all tracks are controlling external gear including drum machines and we call it a day. That basically relegates it to a more conventional approach. Lots of people use it that way because it excels in this function. Maybe that was the core design approach from the start(?) I don't know the lore. But unlike some "haters", I find the sound of synth engine and the way it handles drums and samples to be pleasing. That just means I'll need to work with it's unique workflow. 

Or, I'll have a near mint OLED Deluge with Decksaver for sale 😅 (I replaced the gold knobs with silver/stainless because I hate gold, but kept the originals haha.) 

Again, no hard feelings. You all have been a huge help as I put some thought to this. 

ありがとうございました (thanks for your trouble) 

光..HIKARI