Possibly, depends on guidelines for subsequent use. The workflow methods, as I've been using them in the prototypes, are effectively logical groups of functionality (e.g., ``wf_quality`` or ``wf_demultiplex`` for split libraries). The groups then, in turn, call whatever methods are in the group. However, those methods may still be dependent on requirements (e.g., hamming or golay). The debug trace will currently track both the workflow methods, and any subsequent calls. We could keep it name based, but it is likely that we do not want those internal methods of the wf methods, or possibly even the wf methods themselves to be public. Will add a note to think further on this as well.