I believe in Bob Nuckols' designs.
But who am I? And who is anyone else on a forum?... that's a problem. But we do know who Bob is.
I'm not knowledgeable about Vertical Power so I can't speak to that but if you are not using Vertical Power and you are planning B&C 60A main and 8A auxiliary alternators, what could be better than Z13/8? (Except replacing the main alternator's Ford regulator with B&C and deleting the main alternator's crowbar since it is incorporated into the B&C regulator.)
Z13/8 show's a crowbar on the 8A auxiliary alternator and it's a small cost at $40.
That CB in the main alternator's B lead? Bob says no; use a current limiter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19vu8KCJ8UNvPf6yP5PMRef2DWwaqTbOp/view
==============================
Begin rant...
People say I built it this way and that way and never had a problem; but that's anecdotal; you can cross the street without looking and say that.
I see a lot of advice and proposals on this forum that make me think electrical architecture is a big problem for the safety of EAB aircraft, expecially if they are electrically dependent. If you are using self-powered ignition and an engine-mounted fuel pump you can have an electrical problem and at least the engine will keep running.
Communicating electrical proposals using words alone is asking for misunderstandings with important consequences.
BTW, anecdotally, but in more than one instance in my limited experience, I have seen loose wire crimps, which of course could bring down an electrically dependent airplane. I believe not only electrical design but also execution are opportunities to improve EAB safety.
We know who Bob Nuckols is. And we know he speaks Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. So isn't it wise to know what we don't know and consult an expert, for free, in Aeroelectric Connection? As far as I can tell, the FMEAs, or similar, behind Bob's circuits are not available so if you make changes you may create failure modes that are surprising, unknown, and bad.
... end rant