I agree; I think that dilemma gets resolved by the preferences of the modeler, as to how "real" the modeler wishes to go. And I think in scale competition (at least in our hobby), most Judges I've run into are usually looking for a well finished, accurate model, but without all the weathering. So my recommendation for scale competition, for what it's worth, is to build the model as accurately as you can, and give it the best finish you can. If it's a Sport flyer, finish it the way you like, and that suits your timeframe. In the end it really only needs to suit the modeler.

I'm reminded of a discussion I was in a few years ago about authentically finished WWI plastic aircraft, and the lengths some modelers would go in those competitions. To Tim's point, the aftermarket details are perfectly rendered with no signs of wear, and the decals are crisp with no brush strokes. Yet for the prototype, beyond the factory finish, which in of itself was brushed over doped linen, most of the personal and unit markings were hand-painted at the field, with paint of questionable quality. No airbrushes, no HVLP guns, just a TLAR (as GH would say) approach, with the best artist on hand. So sometimes the model becomes more "perfect' than the real thing, and so we've seen a real swing towards weathering techniques in that hobby.

I'm personally not a big fan of weathering on models, but I'd hardly discourage anyone so inclined. Perhaps that's the challenge that motivates the modeler. And in scale competition I wouldn't consider the absence of weathering a factor in the scoring, even if it was obvious in the documentation (those various smudges, etc, although I would look for the cradle marks. They reflect how the prototype was finished). But for those that made a point of attempting to weather their model to match their photo, I would indeed judge it on that basis.

__________________
John
YORF #003
SAM #004