I would nominate myself as about #23 on the auteurist list, at best.
Like a lukewarm agnostic who can't commit,  I have so many exceptions,
footnotes, uncertainties and yes-buts to my belief in the theory that
my status as a card-carrying auteurist has long since been revoked.

Is there value to studying films grouped by director? Sure, often. Just
like studying by genre; doesn't mean genre is the overwhelming be-all
and end-all force driving the making of films, but it makes study
managable and frequently enlightening. So I have just downgraded the
theory to wishy-washy nebulousity. OTOH there are clearly Welles films,
Fords, Capras, Hawks, Boettichers, etc. These men are artists every bit
as much as the greatest painters who single-handedly produced their art
(or supervised the brushes of their employees, students or
apprentices). OTOH, despite immense bodies of exceptional films, are
there Curtiz or Bacon films? Probably not; there are literally dozens
of films by each of these guys where I simply can't find them at all.
But I have a hard time understanding how, working under the same system
and with the same craftsmen as dozens of other directors, they were so
successful if they are not the artists primarily responsible for the
product.  I've got so many other hands on this issue that I've just
downgraded myself to #42 on the list. No commitment.