That is very interesting, useful and unique solution to the problem.
....Since this is a fixed-lens camera the lens optics and sensor micro-lens assembly could be designed to eliminate this artifact.
Well that's the point, isn't it? One makes pictures with the camera and one looks at the pictures and decides if one is to continue using the damn thing. At least that's what I would do. "Would" being the operative - I do nearly all of the work with a full-frame Nikon that is now nearly 8 years old or a APS-C Fuji that is at least two years old and have absolutely no need for more of anything. Stuff gets replaced when it breaks.
To extrapolate a conceptualization of a design solution into a hypothetical "acceptable/not acceptable" resolution is to wade into the realm of philosophy. Which given the semantics of the original post, is appropriate.
Caution must be exercised, however; no system is perfect.
You want best resolution? Shoot large format.
You want portability? Shoot small format.
Want accurate colour? Transparency under tungsten or digital.
Want best dynamic range? Shoot black and white.
Want it all? Forget cameras.
And on and on.
And, in contravention of the thrust of the original poster's question no camera can be evaluated by simply evaluating a sub-process. It is similar to generalizing a community through the behaviour of one member. It actually can't be done.
The Q occupies a niche. If that niche fits a particular photographer, great. If not....
I'd be willing to bet that the most interesting work will not be produced by the individual agonizing over whether software corrections are acceptable and then finally coming down on the "acceptable, yes" side.
It'll likely be produced by the individual who has an interesting view and likes a 28mm-equivalent field of view. In which case, virtually nobody will be able to tell, unless they look at EXIF data, if it was shot with a M9, a D3, a Q, or a m4/3 camera with a 14mm on it.
So I suppose I'm questioning the question.
