I have resolved the DRIP versus targeted reinvestment dilemna. I'm still a DRIPer

I read several treatments of the issue and nothing changed my mind from the current position.

All of my holdings reinvest. That means between 2 and 10% growth in shares in each holding yearly.

Valuation may go up or down, but even if down, it's cushioned by the reinvested dividend. The growth in share count assures that dividends will grow. Since most of the companies I hold also raise dividends yearly, that also produces compounding as the position grows.

Since all positions are growing, the portfolio holdings grow in parallel, making less re-balancing required.  A lot of discussion results from concern about whether reinvestment produces less growth in the portfolio because some holdings are over-valued. Those who espouse targeted reinvestment claim that they can purchase the most under-valued holdings in their investment universe which produces greater dividend growth.  I'm not convinced.

Most investors will agree that rising earnings results in rising stock price as well as rising dividends.
If rising stock price outstrips rising dividend, then the ability of reinvestment to purchase more shares is blunted. However, if rising earnings also result in rising dividends, one benefits from both factors in appreciation of the value of the position. Then, if one rebalances, one harvests the capital gain and the reinvestment goes into another holding with favorable dividend growth characteristics. The portfolio is reinvesting, even when one is moving money from one holding to another. Both new money and rebalancing are forms of targeted reinvestment, so the portfolio has both forms of reinvestment working simultaneously.

At the moment, most high quality dividend stocks are at fair value or above. The ones that aren't (amongst those I wish to own) already occupy a full position in my portfolio. So, I am accumulating some cash.  I continue to get stung on covered calls. One makes money, but if the stock appreciates above the strike price, you lose the difference and the stock is called, or you have to purchase the call back at a loss. I do better with cash covered puts; I either get premium payments or stocks at discount to strike price.

When I can't find stocks I want to own at current prices, purchasing cash-covered puts keeps the cash in motion, and keeps the over-valued stocks on the radar screen, so when they come into acceptable purchase range, then I can purchase or sell an in-the-money put so that the shares will be assigned at expiration of the put.

What has transpired over the last few years is that I have become comfortable with a strategy and knowledgable about how to moniter that strategy. It means I can spend less time worrying, more time studying how to find better performance. It's a nice place to be, compared with where I started