Perhaps I'm getting a little old, and cranky, and tired of some of the baloney that passes for feedback and evaluations in this game, and therefore you ought to take what I say with a grain of salt. But here goes anyway...
Truths about evaluations #1) Not all evaluators are created equal. The very first thing I learned in English 101 is that when you consider a piece of literature, you need to also consider who wrote it, and why. When you consider an evaluation, you should also consider who is giving the evaluation, and why. Is this person a highly regarded, successful official? Is this person a thoughtful student of the game? Is this person generally acknowledged to be "that guy" and considered a pariah by knowledgeable officials? Was the evaluation given in a spirit of helping you to improve? Or was it given to fulfill some quota or to demonstrate how smart the evaluator is? Knowing this will help you know how strongly to consider his or her opinion.
Truths about evaluations #2) The game looks different from the stands. It just does. Feedback you get especially about calling traveling more, about movement at trail, and about handling coaches, based on what the observer saw from the stands, needs to be considered suspect. Universally, if you stay to watch your evaluator work his game, you'll notice that he doesn't call traveling as often as he says you need to, he doesn't move as much at trail as he says you need to, and he isn't as strict with coaches as he says you need to be. Sure, they mean well, but it's a different game when your on the floor.
Truths about evaluations #3) You need to consider the advice separate from the individual. In seeming contradiction to items 1 and 2, don't let the tenure, quality, or abilities of the evaluator put you off from considering his or her feedback. Just because somebody is new does not mean that they don't have something you can make use of to improve your game. Just because somebody doesn't do what they tell you in their own games, does not mean it's not good advice.
Truths about evaluations #4) Surprising or unusual advice should be confirmed from multiple sources. Don't get played by the official who has a scathingly brilliant idea he wants you to try out for him. Or be fooled by the guy who has some whacked out, non-standard mechanic that he truly believes is the one true way. If it sounds weird, run it by a few other people before you incorporate it into your game. Like you've done here.
IMHO, your evaluator is full of stinky brown stuff. As much as possible you want the two officials to be in two different locations with two different looks at what is going on. It gives better coverage, both during dead ball and live ball. Plus, after a whistle, getting the players busy moving to start the next play is the best tool we have to prevent stupid stuff from happening during dead balls. So why would we want to prolong the dead ball period immediately following a foul call?
When calling a foul, communicate enough information at the spot so that players and partners know what happened, and how we will resume play. Then hustle off to the table to report.