The extrapolation being that if I do it the same way on the long and short runways with available power I would also do it the same way after an engine failure.
I've given this thought, because I see both sides of it. Yes, I like to fly with precision at every opportunity, and be consistent about it, and training consistency to new pilots is certainly a good idea. And, I agree that it's an awkward situation to train a pilot to follow good process X, and then complement them when they flew Y, and it worked. But...
A successful out of norm approach under emergency conditions could be considered "deviance" from proper process... Yes? So we have deviance, and we're agreeing to not "normalize" it. It was acknowledged as deviating from the proper way to do it, not ideal, and not a new training element, but not criticized either. I don't like
normalization of deviance, but under extreme circumstances, I can accept considered deviance.
There are different approaches. Sure, in the circuit to a standard airport runway, they should be the same, other than maybe purposefully landing long. But, When I teach on floats, many new factors are introduced, and a few common factors pretty well abandoned. After a reconnaissance overflight, and water check, I may direct a pilot to fly between trees to tuck it in tight to shore, or to drag it along, and chop power at a certain point, to get around the corner to more calm water. So if a pilot employed a similar odd technique on land for an emergency, and could justify why, I would consider, rather than dismiss their thoughts....