i guess what i was trying to convey was that if a pqr is performed the resulting information could be an indicator of any issues there might be.

The base metals considered to be "prequalified" per D1.1 are typically classified as "easily" welded. They have relatively low carbon content, low carbon equivalencies (Ce), and require little preheat to control hardness and cracking tendencies.

The different groupings in AWS D1.1 Table 3.2 appear to be based on carbon equivalency; higher Ce requires higher preheat.

ASTM A514 is not listed in Table 3.1, but it is listed in Table 4.9, so it would have to be qualified by testing.

With regards to stringer versus weave beads, cooling rates not only affect the hardness of a base metal of a given Ce, but grain size as well. Coarse grains perform better than small grains at elevated temperatures where creep is a concern. Small grains provide better toughness than large grains at low temperatures assuming all other variables are held constant.

Heat input is often used to control cooling rates, thus the grain size of the weld and HAZ. Excessively slow cooling rates encourages coarse (large) grains in the weld and encourages grain coarsening (growth) in the HAZ. Neither of which is beneficial if low temperature toughness is an issue. Usually the travel speed is one of the most effective variables used to control heat input. If small grain sizes are preferred, use stringers to increase travel speed. If larger grain sizes tweaks your interest for high temperature applications, the weave bead is the way to go. 

Heat input is calculated and controlled when qualifying a welding procedure where notch toughness is required. In AWS D1.1 notch toughness is not a concern when qualifying a WPS unless it is specified by the "engineer" in the contract. When toughness requirements are imposed, a multitude of "supplementary variables" kick in and additional restrictions come into play. Those supplementary variables are listed in Table 4.6 and are more limiting than the essential variables listed in Table 4.5. 

As for how the width of a weld bead affects the properties of the base metal, it doesn't matter if you are welding A36, A572, etc. The affects are the same, high heat input, grain coarsening, low toughness, improved ductility, lower strength; low heat, fine grain, improved notch toughness, high strength, lower ductility.

If you are welding a quenched and tempered material, the same situation exists with regards to grain size and notch toughness as with the lower strength steels. However, there is the additional concern with the affects of high heat input and high interpass temperatures on the HAZ, the width of the HAZ, and the areas adjacent to the HAZ. Steels that are Q&T have "high" Ce values so they will develop martensite when rapidly cooled. Then, both toughness and ductility are improved upon, with a relatively small loss in strength, by tempering the martensite at some temperature below the stress relieving temperature (also below the lower temperature of transformation). Welding with high heat input can increase the width of the HAZ by increasing the volume of metal that is heated to temperatures above the transformation temperature, thus the steel is  austenized. Slow cooling due to the high heat input and high interpass temperatures prevent the austenized HAZ from forming martensite when the austenite decompose. Instead, pearlite and ferrite are formed with a dramatic decrease in strength. The area beyond the HAZ does not experience temperatures high enough to be austenized, but may experience temperatures above the tempering temperatures used during manufacturing. Once again, strength is reduced, ductility is improved.

On the other hand; if the welds in Q&T steels are made with too little heat input and/or proper preheat, the weld and HAZ can cool too quickly and the austenite will decompose into untempered martensite. Very strong, but low toughness and low ductility.

Manufacturers of Q&T steels will provide information on the maximum interpass temperatures and heat input limitations to provide a certain level of predictability of the mechanical properties after welding.
I get nervous when folks talk about welding crane booms made with T-1 steels and other high strength materials. All too often the welder isn't provided with sufficient information to make the necessary repairs in the proper manner. If it doesn't crack while welding, the assumption is that it is a good weld.

A good experiment to compare weave beads to stringer beads is to weld a simple T-joint using a single fillet weld. Use A36 steel plates and weld it with "good" E7018 or GMAW spray. Compare a single pass fillet weld with a leg of 5/16 inch made using a weave technique in the vertical position. A weld made in the horizontal or flat positions will work just as well. Then make another assembly welded on one side using multiple passes, three passes should work nicely. Again, be fair, the fillets made using a weave should be no larger or no smaller than the multipass fillet weld. Sounds like a standard Fillet Break Test to me! Then break the fillet welds with a sledge hammer and count the number of blows it takes to break each weldment.

I did this in a shop with 108 welders over a two week period. The results announce by the welders (all 108) was unanimous. They were rather surprised at what they discovered.
I've done this with E7018, E70S-2, E70S-6, E71T-1, and other electrodes and the results is rather typical for all of them.

I may be way off base with my analysis, but that how I look at the issues being discussed. Someone else may have a better handle on this metallurgy stuff.

I just reread your questiona and it appears that I went off on a tangent. As I understand it, the issue of the bead width versus depth is that a weld that is thicker than it is wide tends to crack. When the weld has an odd shape such that the subsurface width and depth exceed the surface face width cracking tendencies increase. However, as I said, I have not seen a case where this was possible with anything other than SAW (not including the high energy beam welding processes).

Best regards - Al

I had this one argued on more than once occassion. A better than average welder can get a way with it. However; 5.30 is not an inference

From 3.0 standard terms and definitions:

deposited metal, brazing, soldering, and welding. Filler
metal that has been added during brazing, soldering or
welding

multipass weld. A fusion weld produced by more than
one progression of the arc, flame or energy source
along the joint.

pass. See thermal spraying pass and weld pass.

slag. A nonmetallic product resulting from the mutual
dissolution of flux and nonmetallic impurities in some
welding and brazing processes.

weld pass. A single progression of welding along a joint.
The result of a weld pass is a weld bead or layer.

Taken by definition, if it has time to solidify it's considered deposited. Therefore I have to believe there is a concern with paragraph 5.30 due to this.
There is no direct reference to limitation. However there is a direct reference to not passing over previously deposited weld metal that has solidified with associated slag. Therefore travel speed, heat, etc will be an inherent limitation on weave that vary depending on the procedure.