In my opinion, the centralization of the Attribute Field Mapping configuration into a single set up interface that simultaneously impacts virtually all editing tools is a fundamentally flawed design. It introduces confusion, contradiction, conflicts, constraints and inefficiency into my workflows that never existed before. It seems designed to only work if I repeatedly use only one of the tools that relies on this set up and rarely switch to any other tool that is impacted by the set up. While I can imagine there are some users that think the centralized Field Mapping set up is an improvement, I doubt they have developed many workflows that switch between the different tools that are impacted by these settings.
I think anyone that thinks about the behaviors of the different editing tools understands why ArcMap never centralized them into a single set up. The Attribute Transfer tool set up is designed around the spatial behavior of that tool, which is best used with only a very small set of field mappings in place to work correctly, especially when the most common behavior involves transferring data between overlapping features in two different feature classes. On the other hand the Copy/Paste behavior needs nearly every attribute mapping set up by default, especially for copy/pasting records within the same feature class/attribute table. But the Copy/Paste Field Mapping set up means I have to turn off the layer covering the other to use the Attribute Transfer to click between the two feature classes, adding a lot of clicks that are not necessary in ArcMap. On the other hand my ideal Attribute Transfer field mapping set up would cause the Copy/Paste behavior to fail to preserve attributes in Pro. I never had to think about that in ArcMap while setting up the Attribute Field Map for the Transfer Attribute Tool in ArcMap. The two behaviors were never meant to control each other, but now. like it or not, I am being forced into an unwanted choice with unintended impacts on both behaviors.
Using the ArcGIS Pro Attribute Field Mapping now feels like trying to configure the separate behaviors of four traffic signal arms where I can only set up one of them and every change I make to one signal arm is being applied to all of the signal arms simultaneously and identically. The result is not the smooth operation of traffic flow through that intersection, but confusion, collisions and a tremendous slow down of traffic flow once the drivers realize the signals arms are all showing green, yellow or red at the same time and not operating independently and in concert with each other.
While playing from a single sheet of music may be fine for a solo performance, no symphony worth listening too was ever performed by giving all the players of the different instruments the same sheet of music to play at the same time. The Copy/Paste, Attribute Transfer tool, and any other editing tools impacted by the Attribute Field Mapping settings are symphony players. They need to be given separate sheets of music to play a symphony together. The Attribute Field Mapping is their sheet music. They are rarely meant to simultaneously play the melody, harmony or rhythm identically when they are played together. And you can't get them to play together by having only one sheet of music available for all of the instruments to read from at any given moment.
I want the field maps of the editing tools able to be separated again. The superficial fact that the user interface appearance required to set up the Field Mappings of the different editing tools can appear identical did not justify connecting all of the editing tool behaviors that use a Field Mapping to a single centralized model underneath. Adding Field Mapping capabilities to the Copy/Paste function is an improvement in so far as it lets me map between different field names for that operation, which I couldn't do with ArcMap. However, that set up should not have been combined with the set up of the Attribute Transfer tool in the mistaken belief that they use this functionality in fundamentally same way.
