Ok, I understand what the transferring of 7cards procedure accomplishes. I guess the reason I don't like it and am hesitant to use it is that, out of the whole effect, it's the only procedure that "reads" like the only reason it's there is to make the trick work.
I'm trying to look at the effect from the point of view of the audience, which luckily isn't hard because before I read the explanation, I was the audience!
Every other procedure shuffling, cutting, burying pieces in the middle of the stack, throwing pieces away, etc. seems to add randomness to the order of the cards, and in each case spectators can make individual decisions as to the final placement of the cards they're manipulating. So when trying to work out the trick later on they'll think: "but I had a choice!"
And then comes this long and rigid procedure of transferring cards individually. You can "motivate" it, as in find an excuse for that specific number that might make it seem arbitrary, but it still won't really explain why it's there. And it comes right before another long and rigid procedure, the under-down deal, which is alright in my opinion because it is motivated by trying to narrow the cards down to one.
So, I tried it today, "Eric Jones style" and got expletive-level reactions, which is pretty good in my book... Although one participant somehow messed up the procedure and her halves didn't match. She still thought the trick was great, because everybody else's matched, but I'm going to have to work on striking a balance between strict direction and an appearance of casual randomness. I'm sure it'll get better with experience.