Mesh distribution

based on your previous post, i suspeect "coherent" results is likely more an aspect of your setup vs the mesh.

curvature vs standard mesher = equivalent. curvature mesher is generally better at handling bad geometry and is multithreaded for faster meshing. but otherwise pretty equivalent from an accuracy perspective.

regarding this actual problem, i don't know what the problem defintiion is or how you think it is affecting the results.

i think your question is "why can't i create a mesh control with curvature based mesher"?

and "why isn't the standard mesher more uniform"?

I am going to assume here that you want get a better mesh than what you are getting  with this being defined as lots of elements where you want them and not so many where you don't and a nice transition between the two areas. Which mesher you use is up to you. A key thing to remember is that when you want a smoothly transitioning mesh and you use use a low number of say 1.1 or 1.2 as the growth ratio you need to select the surfaces that get the mesh control wisely. Wisely usually means that you pick a set of surface that may extend beyond what you are exactly after so that the transition area of the mesh happens on surfaces that have the room to accomodate the growth before you move to another surface patch. Otherwise the mesh has to grow much faster since you don't have the room to execute the growth rate. Some of your previously displayed meshes had behavior that looked like they were not wisely (as mentioned above) choosen.

Actually those meshes were on the other post. You can use split lines to delinate the surfaces where you want to have a mesh control with more specificity.