The difficultest natural high end route?

Hello I am a German climber, not as far so extreme as the most here, but nethertheless very interested in alpine- and sportsclimbing and the history of it, what is going on since over 25 years. Now my input: Very much of the high-end sportclimbing routes are not natural - that means, that there are sika-modelated holds and so on -so as an example- some routes at the canal/orgon. What a pity to compare this routes with others, who are complete natural. I think, that all climbers have the right to know, whether a high-end route is natural or not and how much "designed" this thousands of 8c+ or 9a really are! What did you think about a division? This discussion goes on since several times, but was not yet finished with any concrete solutions for a "better" route-description. All climbers should have a big interest to clear this problem and to make routes better comparable. Artificial climbing is seperated from freeclimbing. Routes, who are not natural, are not real freeclimbing, but artif, because the rock was modelated too much. Where is the border from cleaning up a route to manipulation? I dont know... but a route, who was "designed" from the first mover with a lot of "non-naturals" helps should not be as worthy as another, who is complete natural. May be, this is a good way to describe the number of artificial handholds at first and give the technical difficulty as the second part (f.ex: bronx, orgon: all/8c+)? What do you think? greets from Germany Markus