Stroked for what?
Dana and Krupicka are the TDs involved with the situation, and they've stated that the confusion was that nowhere on the tee sign or the caddy book did it say that re-throws were disallowed. Only that players who throw OB from the tee should proceed directly to the drop zone. My guess is that the assumption was that players would interpret that to mean that the last-in-bounds option was out and that no one would reasonably prefer to re-tee should they go OB.
What wasn't accounted for was that McBeth saw the DZ earlier in the week when someone, unrelated to the tournament, had moved the OB ropes to such a position that they obstructed the drop zone area (specifically, they cut off the run-up area significantly). That problem had been fixed and the ropes moved away so that there was plenty of space to run-up, but McBeth at the time was unaware of that fact. Hence he wanted to re-tee rather than go to what he believed was a cramped drop zone ill-suited for his next throw. Had he known, I doubt he'd have wanted to re-throw from the tee whatsoever.
Given the confusion, throwing a provisional was a wise decision to keep things moving rather than wait on a TD's decision. And the TD's decision to recognize the provisional for what it was and discard it makes sense as well. It was a reasonable decision to make.
All that said, what is really bothering me about the whole situation, particularly the discussion afterward, is the notion that a TD can restrict a player from re-throwing from a lie under the Optional Re-throw rule. The TD can limit the options on an OB throw as was done for this event, preventing players from using the last-in-bounds spot or directing players to a drop zone when provided. What a TD cannot do is take away the Optional Re-throw rule. I'd bet a good amount of money that whatever waivers the tournament had did not specifically allow them to take away Optional Re-throw. The waivers only allowed them to restrict options under the OB rule (forced T&D, forced DZs, etc).
It would seem the confusion from the group at the tee was regarding that. According to some accounts, when Paul asked if he could re-tee rather than go to the DZ, Nikko said that a player can always re-tee. My understanding is that he was referring to the optional re-throw rule and he'd be correct in that case. From there, everyone (staff, Paul, etc) conflated Optional Re-throw and OB re-throw as if they are the same thing. THAT is what I feel the TDs got incorrect here.
Dana really had no reason to call Krupicka or Heinold for clarification. If Paul wanted to re-tee, he had every right to do so under the Optional Re-throw rule regardless of what the signs/caddy book said. He should not have had to throw that provisionally at all. But he did, and the TDs ruled as they did, and ultimately it made zero difference whatsoever in the grand scheme. End of story.
It should be a lesson for the future though. Not just to be crystal clear in the wording of caddy books and tee signs and any other listing of rules, but that there is a significant distinction between re-throwing from a previous lie pursuant to the OB rules and re-throwing from a previous lie pursuant to the Optional Re-throw rule. They are not the same thing.
