I agree with Parkman that the methods are largely complementary. As far as the main discussion, what I think is we must remember these are the methods, not the aims. I think someone earlier mentioned it, but it bears repeating. For example, the goal is not leadership development even though it sounds like it. Leadership development is a means (a method) for a scout to become able to do things for others. Advancement is not the outcome, but a means to encourage a scout to plan, prioritize, make choices to do things for themselves. Adult association is not to provide safety, but for scouts to see first hand how ethical adults treat each other, and the scouts. The adults set the example of how to best make ethical choices and helping others. Etc...
When the methods get blurred with the purpose and aims; this begins the problems and a method or two slowly become the desired outcomes instead of the means to the end.
Based on my understand - yes, the unit would be in compliance.
However, I tihnk you have to look at why the BSA made this YPT rule. In essence, YPT rules exist for two main purposes 1) protect youth from situations where abuse is more likely to occur, & 2) protect adult volunteers from being in situations which are more likely to lead to accusations of abuse. I know there is a third reason - to protect the BSA in lawsuits, but for the sake of discussion, let's not focus on that at this time. I expect that the BSA leadership felt that situations with a female youth was alone with two adult males was a scenario where there was enough possibility of abuse or allegations of abuse that they created this rule.
Imagine a scenario where a female adult leader is on premises but out of sight and two adult male leaders are alone with a single female youth. My understanding is that this would meet the YPT requirements. Yet, it doesn't do anything to minimize the possibilty or abuse or abuse allegations over the original rules.
This is where I think that the BSA YPT rules are inherently unwiedly. The BSA would have been better taking a more progressive stand by staying with their original two-deep rules or by taking an approach where no individiual youth of a one gender can be alone with one or more adults of a different gender. i.e., two youth females and two adult males - OK. one youth female, one adult female, one adult male - OK. one youth female, one youth male, one adult female, one adult male - OK. one youth male, two adult females - not OK. etc.
I find the 8 methods are largely complimentary and go to building a diverse exerpience for Scouts. For example, if you focus mostly on advancement - then eventually Scouts get bored. If you focus mostly on outdoors - the same. So, I don't think I'd rank them - but instead ask myself - what's the best I can do in each?
The strongest troops that I know seem to do well in all. Sure, not every one requires the same level of effort - but it doesn't mean it's any less important. For example, an active outdoor program requires lots of time whereas uniforming does not. Uniforming is more about setting the proper expectations early and simply reminding Scouts along the way. Sure, with uniforming you can put some energy into things like uniform closets and "Class B" uniforms - but even those don't require too much effort once they get going.
I'd also suggest that focusing on all 8 of them provides opportunities for more scouts & adults to get involved. Scouts may get bored by high school with just patrol method, camping, and advancement. That's where the focus on personal growth, leadership development, and adult association pays off. Adult Assocation and outdoor program create opportunities for more adults to take on small rolls.